F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 02:32
by zenith
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 02:33
by zenith
Image

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 02:50
by zenith
Highlights:

F-35 had the first dogfight (test) in January, no limitation was set.

F-35 flown
9g+ and -3g,
110 deg. AOA.
1.6 Mach
50000 ft. altitude

Pilot really like maneuverability.

It took F-22 3~4 months to get max alpha, 4 days for F-35.

TRO issue is gone.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 02:59
by zenith
F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Guy Norris and Amy Butler Avialion Week & Space Technology Apr 2, 2015

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown :in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option.

Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft's recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. "The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability," says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David "Doc" Nelson.

The operational maneuvers were flown by Nelson in AF-2, the primary Flight Sciences loads and flutter evaluation aircraft, and one of nine F-35s used by the Edwards AFB-based 412th Test wing for developmental testing (DT). The F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards has six F-35As, two F-35Bs and a single F-35C dedicated to DT work, as well as a further set of aircraft allotted to the Joint Operational Test Team. Work is underway as part of efforts to clear the final system development and demonstration (SDD) maneuvering envelopes on the way to initial operational capability (IOC). The U.S. Marine Corps F-35B IOC is targeted for later this year, the Air Force's F-35A in 2016, and the U.S. Navy's F-35C in 2019.

"When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, 'you have no limits,"' says Nelson. "It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes." AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see "how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace," says Col. Rod "Trash" Cregier, F-35 program director. "It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it-that's the option."

"Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], 'you don't have to clamp down so tight,'" says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from "clean" wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA.

An "aggressive and unique" approach has been taken to the high AOA, or "high alpha" testing, says Nelson. "Normally, test programs will inch up on max alpha, and on the F-22 it took us 3-4 months to get to max alpha. On this jet, we did it in four days. We put a spin chute on the back, which is normal for this sort of program, and then we put the airplane out of control and took our hands off the controls to see if it came back. We actually tweaked the flight control system with an onboard flight test aid to allow it to go out of control, because it wouldn't by itself. Then we drove the center of gravity back and made it the worst-case configuration on the outside with weapons bay doors and put the aircraft in a spin." The aircraft has been put into spins with yaw rates up to 60 deg./ sec., equal to a complete turn every 6 sec. "That's pretty good. But we paddled off the flight-test aid and it recovered instantly," he says.

Pilots also tested the ability of the F-35 to recover from a deep-stall in which it was pushed beyond the maximum AoA command limit by activating a manual pitch limiter (MPL) override similar to the alpha limiter in the F-16. "It's not something an operational pilot would do, but the angle of attack went back and, with the center of gravity way back aft, it would not pitch over, but it would pitch up. So it got stuck at 60 or 70 deg. alpha, and it was as happy as could be. There was no pitching moment to worry about, and as soon as I let go of the MPL, it would come out," Nelson says.

Following consistent recoveries, the test team opted to remove the spin chute for the rest of the test program. "The airplane, with no spin chute, had demonstrated the ability to recover from the worst-case departure, so we felt very confident, and that has been proven over months of high alpha testing," says Nelson. "It also satisfied those at the Joint Program Office who said spin chute on the back is not production-representative and produces aerodynamic qualities that are not right." Although there are additional test points ahead where the spin chute is scheduled to be reattached for departure resistance with various weapons loads, the test team is considering running through the points without it.

With the full flight envelope now opened to an altitude of 50,000 ft., speeds of Mach 1.6/700 KCAS and loads of 9g, test pilots also say improvements to the flight control system have rendered the transonic roll-off (TRO) issue tactically irrelevant. Highlighted as a "program concern" in the Defense Department's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 2014 report, initial flight tests showed that all three F-35 variants experienced some form of wing drop in high-speed turns associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves. However, TRO "has evolved into a non-factor," says Nelson, who likens the effect to a momentary "tug" on one shoulder harness. "You have to pull high-g to even find it." The roll-off phenomena exhibits itself as "less than 10 deg./sec. for a fraction of a second. We have been looking for a task it affects and we can't find one."

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 03:12
by spazsinbad
Nadir wants to make a splash - earlier brungitback posted same info:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15013&p=288512&hilit=paywall#p288512

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 13:35
by mikemag
Greetings all. Long time reader, first time poster. Big F-35 fan! Which is why I was a little disappointed to read that article. I might be trying too hard to read between the lines, but it sounds like they're saying "We had an F-35 dogfight a viper. Rather than tell you whether or not it held its own, we're going to reassure you that we can improve it's maneuverability in the future." It sounds like stubby got smoked.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 13:40
by jdrush
I've been seeing this happen from work. I have to admit its cool to see contrails/g-trails tangle from the ground

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 13:57
by bring_it_on
mikemag wrote:Greetings all. Long time reader, first time poster. Big F-35 fan! Which is why I was a little disappointed to read that article. I might be trying too hard to read between the lines, but it sounds like they're saying "We had an F-35 dogfight a viper. Rather than tell you whether or not it held its own, we're going to reassure you that we can improve it's maneuverability in the future." It sounds like stubby got smoked.


Flight testing routinely provides feedback to the designers of both hardware and the control laws as to what sort of performance is actually achieved and how that can be bettered. Reading it, one realizes that the recommendations to open up the laws a tad bit actually comes from the excellent departure and AOA testing in general where according to the pilot who conducted the test flights the aircraft handled brilliantly. Apart from the first few lines that mentions that they have started to send it up against F-16's in BFM there is absolutely no mention of that in the article. They essentially interviewed the guy who did most of the testing on AF2 and took his feedback as to what he thinks of the performance and what recommendations he had for the designers.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 14:27
by zero-one
mikemag wrote:Greetings all. Long time reader, first time poster. Big F-35 fan! Which is why I was a little disappointed to read that article. I might be trying too hard to read between the lines, but it sounds like they're saying "We had an F-35 dogfight a viper. Rather than tell you whether or not it held its own, we're going to reassure you that we can improve it's maneuverability in the future." It sounds like stubby got smoked.


Or you can take it this way

"We sent AF-2 against F-16s, we were cleared for 9Gs/-3Gs just like the F-16.

I don't want to talk trash against any plane so Im not gona say who won, besides a lot of that depends on the pilot anyway

however what I can say is that the thing flew so well at high AOA which is one of the aircraft's main strengths in a dog fight,

not surprising since we flew the thing at 110 degrees AOA and it was fine, it was happy at 70 AOA, there is certainly an option to add even more agility since the aircraft handles exceptionally against departure. the F-16 on the other hand is limited to 25 degrees AOA.

So you do the math

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 15:09
by mikemag
The high AOA performance is great to hear of course and in a situation where both planes end up at low speed, I'd expect the F-35's nose-pointing ability to win the engagement. I suppose once I read the title of the article I thought we were going to hear something to the effect that when both planes were lightly loaded the F-35 was able to hold high G maneuvers on par with a late model viper. I'm hopeful we'll still get that type of confirmation from a source other than the LM spokesperson.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 17:46
by zero-one
mikemag wrote:The high AOA performance is great to hear of course and in a situation where both planes end up at low speed, I'd expect the F-35's nose-pointing ability to win the engagement. I suppose once I read the title of the article I thought we were going to hear something to the effect that when both planes were lightly loaded the F-35 was able to hold high G maneuvers on par with a late model viper. I'm hopeful we'll still get that type of confirmation from a source other than the LM spokesperson.



I was hoping for the same thing, but this is what he said, and probably this is what he used to win the engagement,
modern dogfights are usually point and shoot engagements where high AOA and pitch authority is essential,

maybe Doc Nelson didn''t need to turn for very long periods.

Dogfight may have went down like this,

AF-2 and F-16 went into a classic merge, F-16 starts pulling Gs,
AF-2 pulls a high AOA, and points it's nose on the Viper, gets good tone, Fox-2

for Doc Nelson, AOA was the hero of the Day so he wants more of it.

maybe when they get down to guns only, we'll here more about high-Gs

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 21:45
by quicksilver
mikemag wrote:The high AOA performance is great to hear of course and in a situation where both planes end up at low speed, I'd expect the F-35's nose-pointing ability to win the engagement. I suppose once I read the title of the article I thought we were going to hear something to the effect that when both planes were lightly loaded the F-35 was able to hold high G maneuvers on par with a late model viper. I'm hopeful we'll still get that type of confirmation from a source other than the LM spokesperson.


Doc Nelson is not "the LM spokesperson." He is a Test Pilot and would jeopardize his credibility with his LM, USG and SETP colleagues (with whom he works every day) if he were to utter anything at odds with the reality. If the Colonel also quoted in the article had disagreed with him, we would have heard about it.

Nose pointing is less relevant in modern BFM than "head pointing" (ie using an HMD to target for high off-boresight missiles). Many aircraft have been doing this for years now.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 22:20
by jjk
quicksilver wrote:Doc Nelson is not "the LM spokesperson." He is a Test Pilot and would jeopardize his credibility with his LM, USG and SETP colleagues (with whom he works every day) if he were to utter anything at odds with the reality. If the Colonel also quoted in the article had disagreed with him, we would have heard about it.


I'm a bit lost with the abbreviations, LM = Lockheed Martin, but what does USG and SETP stand for?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 22:40
by quicksilver
US Government
Society of Experimental Test Pilots

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 23:16
by jjk
quicksilver wrote:US Government
Society of Experimental Test Pilots


Thanks, first one i could have guessed (but who are they really :) ), second one is new for me.

But back to the subject of this thread, i would like to see some videos of these "F-35 against F-16" Maneuvers.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2015, 23:36
by spazsinbad
One should e-mail or request via LM F-35 News website these fillum/video/film ideas - probably there is no way to do it via DoD (US Dept of Defence). I'm curious to know what these 1v1 videos would look like - what should be shown - to be satisfactory to those interested. https://www.f35.com/contact

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2015, 18:38
by jjk
spazsinbad wrote:... I'm curious to know what these 1v1 videos would look like - what should be shown - to be satisfactory to those interested. ...


I would like to see some basic fighter maneuvers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers and http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf page 49 and onwards ) from different perspectives.

I suggest a six folded split screen:
  • 2x wide angled front views from aircraft nose from attacker and defender
  • 2x normal angled views from pilots helmets (with or without 'see through the bottom of the plane' gadgets)
  • 1x overview from well above
  • 1x text screen with numerical info of speed and position of attacker and defender

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2015, 19:29
by spazsinbad
OK - good to know what you require. Have you seen any equivalent videos/films? IF not - why not? I could guess (please TOPGUN - the movie - is not a candidate).

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2015, 19:43
by jjk
spazsinbad wrote:OK - good to know what you require. Have you seen any equivalent videos/films? ...


Yeah i know, i might be over-asking, but it would have been nice to seen such a thing for worlds most expensive fighter program...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2015, 22:49
by mrigdon
jjk wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:OK - good to know what you require. Have you seen any equivalent videos/films? ...


Yeah i know, i might be over-asking, but it would have been nice to seen such a thing for worlds most expensive fighter program...


There's a STOVL version. Frankly, I don't think it's that much to ask that they fly an F-35B to my neighborhood, land on the street, then buzz me so I can come down and watch them perform maneuvers. It would be great if I can make up a list of maneuvers for them to fly, too, but I don't want to overbearing.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2015, 01:00
by Gums
Salute!

Good grief. The "golden arms" at Pax and Edwuds are the last folks we want to evaluate the jets in simulated air combat.

Our Viper cadre that were in the "flyoff" back in '73 - '74 and then showed up at Hill in 1979 were a mixed bag. F-100, F-4 , F-5 and A-7. I can tell you that the ex-aggressor guys from F-5's were out of the universe for A2A. Man, they were good. They knew how to exploit the capabilities of the Viper and also knew tactics, not just basic BFM stuff.

It was only after a few months at Hill that we got to know what we were good at and what were our limits. Visiting folks came in every week and we had A2A missions that were off the normal schedule that we had for pilot checkouts. Most were weekends, and maintenance did not complain because they were learning like we pilots.

The folks from Top Gun were surprised because we could fight slow and we could go vertical like nothing they had seen except the Eagle. These were A-4 guys, and they were good. So no face shot and then the merge and we went up, then came back and watched the "last ditch maneuver" and then gunned the sucker. No need to waste $$$ with a Lima.

The first Eagles were surprised we could go vertical with them. We had to be careful at the top of a rolling scissors due to their nose-pointing ability and the Hornets a year later were the same. I once went from about 20K to 30K in a vertical scissors with another old fart in his Eagle. Niether one of us could get to guns or get enuf separation for a Lima, and wound up coming all the way down to the "floor" at 10K. What do you expect from two 40-year old has been jocks?

The sustained turn comment from one dude re: AUS discussion does not wash ( and dude was a test pilot). The Viper sustained turn rate was and still is the highest of anything I can see. We could hold 9 gees below 10K until we ran outta gas. Our sustained turn rate at that was well above 15 degrees/second ( about 360 KIAS). Turn radius was about 1500 feet!!!

Oh well. Those days are gone for me now. Guess I should just let them go.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2015, 02:43
by quicksilver
No, the dude at Pax was a flight test engineer (Peter Goon...look it up), not a pilot.

Intent of the Doc Nelson test sortie was not a "BFM evaluation"; it was an evaluation of the HQs and agility of the jet in a BFM context where (unlike typical test point generation) they could maneuaver the jet without restriction. DT guys dont do BFM...for good reason.

Take note that there were no recommendations to change anything (note the comment about future 'options').

Deep breaths...go back to the Barcalounger. :wink:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2015, 04:34
by bring_it_on
jjk wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:... I'm curious to know what these 1v1 videos would look like - what should be shown - to be satisfactory to those interested. ...


I would like to see some basic fighter maneuvers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers and http://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf page 49 and onwards ) from different perspectives.

I suggest a six folded split screen:
  • 2x wide angled front views from aircraft nose from attacker and defender
  • 2x normal angled views from pilots helmets (with or without 'see through the bottom of the plane' gadgets)
  • 1x overview from well above
  • 1x text screen with numerical info of speed and position of attacker and defender


I want the option to toggle between the camera view (could be a go pro) and DAS imagery. Thats a bare minimum.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2015, 17:49
by neurotech
quicksilver wrote:No, the dude at Pax was a flight test engineer (Peter Goon...look it up), not a pilot.

Intent of the Doc Nelson test sortie was not a "BFM evaluation"; it was an evaluation of the HQs and agility of the jet in a BFM context where (unlike typical test point generation) they could maneuaver the jet without restriction. DT guys dont do BFM...for good reason.

Take note that there were no recommendations to change anything (note the comment about future 'options').

Deep breaths...go back to the Barcalounger. :wink:

Most FTEs don't have to pass tactical quals as part of the program itself at Pax River. NFO/WSOs do when they go to FRS to fly in F/A-18s.

Part of the reason why the JSF team is taking BFM envelope cautiously is that during the Super Hornet program, the Navy almost lost a few jets when they departed controlled flight.

Test pilots flew BFM sorties in the F-22. Tom Morgenfeld and Paul Metz were involved in these missions. Capt. Morgenfeld was also a rated MiG pilot, and flew in Red Flag exercises. What they didn't do is BFM before the appropriate flight tests were complete.

I suspect there is a Navy vs USAF issue at play here. Naval Aviators go to TOPGUN for a relatively short program, compared to the graduate program at AFWS. The result is that it would be unusual to find a graduate of both AFWS and TPS. USNTPS (2 year course) is also a graduate program. It would not be unusual to find a TOPGUN pilot graduate Pax river, then go out to China Lake.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 14:52
by zero-one
Gums wrote:Salute!

Good grief. The "golden arms" at Pax and Edwuds are the last folks we want to evaluate the jets in simulated air combat.

Our Viper cadre that were in the "flyoff" back in '73 - '74 and then showed up at Hill in 1979 were a mixed bag. F-100, F-4 , F-5 and A-7. I can tell you that the ex-aggressor guys from F-5's were out of the universe for A2A. Man, they were good. They knew how to exploit the capabilities of the Viper and also knew tactics, not just basic BFM stuff.

It was only after a few months at Hill that we got to know what we were good at and what were our limits. Visiting folks came in every week and we had A2A missions that were off the normal schedule that we had for pilot checkouts. Most were weekends, and maintenance did not complain because they were learning like we pilots.

The folks from Top Gun were surprised because we could fight slow and we could go vertical like nothing they had seen except the Eagle. These were A-4 guys, and they were good. So no face shot and then the merge and we went up, then came back and watched the "last ditch maneuver" and then gunned the sucker. No need to waste $$$ with a Lima.

The first Eagles were surprised we could go vertical with them. We had to be careful at the top of a rolling scissors due to their nose-pointing ability and the Hornets a year later were the same. I once went from about 20K to 30K in a vertical scissors with another old fart in his Eagle. Niether one of us could get to guns or get enuf separation for a Lima, and wound up coming all the way down to the "floor" at 10K. What do you expect from two 40-year old has been jocks?

The sustained turn comment from one dude re: AUS discussion does not wash ( and dude was a test pilot). The Viper sustained turn rate was and still is the highest of anything I can see. We could hold 9 gees below 10K until we ran outta gas. Our sustained turn rate at that was well above 15 degrees/second ( about 360 KIAS). Turn radius was about 1500 feet!!!

Oh well. Those days are gone for me now. Guess I should just let them go.

Gums sends...



Salute, nothing like seeing Mr. Gums post on the wall, this guys been there done that.

One question sir, what did you honestly think about Doc Nelson's post?
lots of word about how the Stubby handles high AOA?

What was it like when you went against high AOA performers in your Viper? back then only the Hornet could do that,
and the Flanker, but I guess you never went up against those Sukhois....did you? please tell :mrgreen:

I always thought of the F-35A like a Hornet with a little more power, how might this come into play in todays, HOBS oriented knife fights?

Im thinking it won't be as awsome as how it was back then when Gums flew BFM, but then again, I could be wrong, highest G I ever pulled was around 2 or 3 in an amusement park :roll:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 17:38
by Gums
Salute!

TNX for nice words, Zero.

The Eagle was prolly best of what we saw. That's with a good pilot. Then the Hornet, but I did not see many of them before I got out. I didn't see any Constant Peg planes, but the ones we had back then couldn't turn worth a damn.

The big deal for the Viper, and still is, concerns the limiter. There might be one time in a hundred fights you want or need a few more degrees of AoA, but the Vegas odds are in favor of preserving energy. We had really nice nose rates at the top of a zoom at 140 knots IAS, and roll was better than anythng else we saw at those speeds. Last thing you needed was to do a departure recovery during a fight, ya think?

From what I have seen, looks like the F-35 would be better than a "loaded" F-16 or F-18 or other modern jet. The clean configuration a few of the new jets could place the F-35 slightly behind, but that's assuming an undetected merge with no face shots. Basic knife fight.

I do not wish to go back to the F-4 mentality of the early 60's and put all my bets on BVR missiles. A limited gun capability is nice, but the new close-in missiles are far better than we had back then. So overall, looks to this old mudbeater like the F-35 will fill the operational requirements and do so for a long time.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 18:22
by archeman
Combo Question/Response

Since the folks involved here are reported to be primarily Test Pilots, doesn't it stand to reason that this F-35 vs F-16 BFM is part of the larger test program?

Also following that, the 'engagements' are not Free For All, Kill or Be Killed, Lets just jink about and see who wins - type engagements. Some of the questions about "What are the results" seem to imply that those engaged and the program office folks organizing the activity didn't presume to a large degree the outcome of each 'test' before executing/verifying it. I would hope by this point in the program that the program office and the pilots at least know how the aircraft maneuvers -- the purpose of the testing would likely be more focused on how the F-35 collection of systems function together with the pilot as part of war-fighting engagements during Condition X, Condition Y, Condition Z etc...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 22:14
by zero-one
Gums wrote:Salute!

TNX for nice words, Zero.

The Eagle was prolly best of what we saw. That's with a good pilot. Then the Hornet, but I did not see many of them before I got out. I didn't see any Constant Peg planes, but the ones we had back then couldn't turn worth a damn.

The big deal for the Viper, and still is, concerns the limiter. There might be one time in a hundred fights you want or need a few more degrees of AoA, but the Vegas odds are in favor of preserving energy. We had really nice nose rates at the top of a zoom at 140 knots IAS, and roll was better than anythng else we saw at those speeds. Last thing you needed was to do a departure recovery during a fight, ya think?

From what I have seen, looks like the F-35 would be better than a "loaded" F-16 or F-18 or other modern jet. The clean configuration a few of the new jets could place the F-35 slightly behind, but that's assuming an undetected merge with no face shots. Basic knife fight.

I do not wish to go back to the F-4 mentality of the early 60's and put all my bets on BVR missiles. A limited gun capability is nice, but the new close-in missiles are far better than we had back then. So overall, looks to this old mudbeater like the F-35 will fill the operational requirements and do so for a long time.

Gums sends...



Many thanks Mr. Gums,

Woah, I always thought the the Hornet was a better BFM machine than the Eagle, being an unstable design with awesome AOA and all,

although I do know that the early Hornets didn't have as much AOA and nose pointing authority as the latest ones, especially against the Rhino.

It got me thinking, Viper and Typhoon pilots typically say that high AOA isn't very important in your typical BFM environment, but could it be because you were not trained to fight that way?

Because when you talk to Hornet and Rhino Jocks, they go on and on about high AOA, and not much about climbing and maintaining E, prolly because they were not trained to fight that way.

I could be way off the mark, but do you guys think this could be a factor?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 23:16
by sprstdlyscottsmn
No, I think you are on to a very important bit, flying your plane. A Viper driver trained to do the slow stuff is not playing to his planes strengths. Conversely, a Rhino driver who tries at all costs to not go below 300KIAS is avoiding his planes strengths in BFM. That is what the F-35 is trying to accomplish, fight like both a Viper and a Hornet at the same time.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2015, 23:18
by mrigdon
I was curious about the differences in fighters between the Navy and the Air Force and whether the training was adjusted to the capabilities of the planes or vice versa. The Navy obviously favors certain performance parameters that the Air Force isn't concerned with, most notably low speed control for carrier landings, and this obviously affects the entire design.

I found a PDF concerning Naval air training. It mentions two models used to break down air-to-air combat sequences: Maneuver Conversion and Firing Sequence. You can read the full PDF for yourself http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/0710770100.pdf

It's an old paper, so it may not be relevant any longer, but depending on the model you use to break down air-to-air engagements, one might seem to favor certain maneuvers that the other model wouldn't.

I was trying to find information about how the Air Force approaches BFM and training. The Air Force and Navy have had fighters with quite dissimilar performance envelopes and the internet is always going on and on about 9G fighters, but the Navy has never had a 9G fighter in front line service (correct me if I'm wrong), yet they've always managed to perform well while going up against "superior" Air Force planes in exercises. There's obviously more to performance than how many Gs you can pull, but how you train your pilots should have a big effect as well.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 00:52
by neurotech
mrigdon wrote:I was curious about the differences in fighters between the Navy and the Air Force and whether the training was adjusted to the capabilities of the planes or vice versa. The Navy obviously favors certain performance parameters that the Air Force isn't concerned with, most notably low speed control for carrier landings, and this obviously affects the entire design.

I found a PDF concerning Naval air training. It mentions two models used to break down air-to-air combat sequences: Maneuver Conversion and Firing Sequence. You can read the full PDF for yourself http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/0710770100.pdf

It's an old paper, so it may not be relevant any longer, but depending on the model you use to break down air-to-air engagements, one might seem to favor certain maneuvers that the other model wouldn't.

I was trying to find information about how the Air Force approaches BFM and training. The Air Force and Navy have had fighters with quite dissimilar performance envelopes and the internet is always going on and on about 9G fighters, but the Navy has never had a 9G fighter in front line service (correct me if I'm wrong), yet they've always managed to perform well while going up against "superior" Air Force planes in exercises. There's obviously more to performance than how many Gs you can pull, but how you train your pilots should have a big effect as well.

The Navy have never had a 9G fighter in front line service. F-16 doesn't count as its only for aggressor training. I'm not sure there is a philosophical difference between USAF & USN in ACM, as much as its simply training to the strengths of the aircraft. The F-14A had a tendency to compressor stall during ACM, so slow, high alpha flight wasn't a good idea.

The F/A-18 can quickly bleed energy down to under 100 kts during ACM if the pilot doesn't manage their energy state. The F-5 (& T-38) is another jet that is agile, but doesn't have a lot of thrust to maintain energy during maneuvers. Its critical to make the lead turn count, and get on the bandits six, and shoot.

The F-5 and T-38 aggressor jets have nailed everything including F-22s with surprisingly regularity. The usual way is that the F-22 lets the T-38 get above them, and they can trade altitude for energy and get onto the F-22s tail.

They have done tests with the F/A-18s using JHMCS during ACM firing off boresight and the results are humbling for the bandits expecting a standard dogfight. The F-35 will exploit this even more than the F/A-18 does. Of course, the MiG-29 also has HMS, although not as advanced as the F/A-18 uses.

Training matters a lot more than "technology" when it comes to ACM results.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 01:48
by Corsair1963
neurotech wrote:
mrigdon wrote:I was curious about the differences in fighters between the Navy and the Air Force and whether the training was adjusted to the capabilities of the planes or vice versa. The Navy obviously favors certain performance parameters that the Air Force isn't concerned with, most notably low speed control for carrier landings, and this obviously affects the entire design.

I found a PDF concerning Naval air training. It mentions two models used to break down air-to-air combat sequences: Maneuver Conversion and Firing Sequence. You can read the full PDF for yourself http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/0710770100.pdf

It's an old paper, so it may not be relevant any longer, but depending on the model you use to break down air-to-air engagements, one might seem to favor certain maneuvers that the other model wouldn't.

I was trying to find information about how the Air Force approaches BFM and training. The Air Force and Navy have had fighters with quite dissimilar performance envelopes and the internet is always going on and on about 9G fighters, but the Navy has never had a 9G fighter in front line service (correct me if I'm wrong), yet they've always managed to perform well while going up against "superior" Air Force planes in exercises. There's obviously more to performance than how many Gs you can pull, but how you train your pilots should have a big effect as well.

The Navy have never had a 9G fighter in front line service. F-16 doesn't count as its only for aggressor training. I'm not sure there is a philosophical difference between USAF & USN in ACM, as much as its simply training to the strengths of the aircraft. The F-14A had a tendency to compressor stall during ACM, so slow, high alpha flight wasn't a good idea.

The F/A-18 can quickly bleed energy down to under 100 kts during ACM if the pilot doesn't manage their energy state. The F-5 (& T-38) is another jet that is agile, but doesn't have a lot of thrust to maintain energy during maneuvers. Its critical to make the lead turn count, and get on the bandits six, and shoot.

The F-5 and T-38 aggressor jets have nailed everything including F-22s with surprisingly regularity. The usual way is that the F-22 lets the T-38 get above them, and they can trade altitude for energy and get onto the F-22s tail.

They have done tests with the F/A-18s using JHMCS during ACM firing off boresight and the results are humbling for the bandits expecting a standard dogfight. The F-35 will exploit this even more than the F/A-18 does. Of course, the MiG-29 also has HMS, although not as advanced as the F/A-18 uses.

Training matters a lot more than "technology" when it comes to ACM results.


Misconception the USN Fighters are all capable of 9G's. They just don't operate them as such during peace time to save airframe lives....

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 04:05
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'mrigdon' that PDF about NAVY Air Combat Training is dated Sep 1976. ACM and differences USN/USAF have been debated a few times. AFAIK some BFM PDFs for new Goshawk T-45C pilots have been uploaded also which perhaps are more informative about what happens today. However thanks because it is complex and interesting - only excerpts below:
MANEUVERING ENGAGEMENTS Vol. I - Methodology
Sep 1976 Walter R. Nunn, Richard A. Oberle, CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES, Operations Evaluation Group

"SUMMARY - INTRODUCTION
Air-to-air warfare capability is an integral part of the U.S. defense capability, and recent experience in both Southeast Asia and the Arab/Israeli conflicts reemphasizes the need for continual, comprehensive aircrew training in this type of combat. The U. S. has schools in which fighter pilots receive instruction in air combat maneuvering (ACM) and, more recently, instrumented ranges have been developed to expand our training capability. Regretfully, the analysis community has been slow in developing a unified methodology for evaluating a total system (aircraft, aircrew, weapon system, and tactics) during training. The main reasons for the difficulty are: (1) the complexity of air-to-air scenarios, (2) differences between training and actual combat, and (3) difficulties in reconstructing air-to-air engagements for analysis. [ :mrgreen: AND HOW TO MAKE MOVIES OF SAME! :devil: ]

Some partial success has been achieved in analyzing ACM. The U.S. Air Force has used energy-maneuverability models successfully to design maneuver tactics based on optimal energy management . Such models generally cannot quantify less-than-optimal maneuvering, and do not lead to probabilities of win, loss, and draw. Attempts to use game-theory techniques have generally been unsuccessful although such techniques appear to have considerable potential.

Various ad hoc techniques have been used for analysis of ACM data obtained on test ranges, with emphasis being on statistical properties. Numerous useful measures of effectiveness (MOEs) have been formulated, but attempts to integrate the MOEs into an overall scheme which evaluates ACM effectiveness have been unsuccessful.

In 1971, AirTEvRon Four (VX-4) was tasked by CNO to evaluate the survivability of the AV-8A Harrier attack aircraft in a hostile fighter environment. Because of the Harrier's unique thrust vectoring capability, the scope of the project was enlarged to include an ACM evaluation of the Harrier. At this time, no numerical methodology was available to quantitatively assess the value of the thrust vectoring in ACM. In an attempt to support with analysis the conclusions reached by the aircrews, CNA analysts and the VX-4 project officers developed an analytic evaluation scheme which has since become known as the Maneuver Conversion Model. Using this model, analysts were able to quantify the aircrew
assessment of the value of the Harrier thrust vectoring for ACM. This early success stimulated research to extend the Maneuver Conversion Model and also to explore other ACM models.

This study describes the structure and numerical properties of two stochastic models of air-to-air combat that have proven useful in understanding the sequences of events observed in test-range engagements. These models (the Maneuver Conversion Model and the Firing Sequence Model) have important differences which will be discussed below. However, the models have several things in common:..."

Source: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/ ... 770100.pdf (2.8Mb)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 06:14
by neurotech
Corsair1963 wrote:Misconception the USN Fighters are all capable of 9G's. They just don't operate them as such during peace time to save airframe lives....

I'm well aware that the F/A-18 is capable of more than the 7.5Gs authorized. The Swiss F-18 variant has a few structural upgrades and is cleared to 9Gs.

If a pilot Over Gs the jet, what follows is usually a JAGMAN investigation, and probably a FNAEB. The Navy will also ground a jet if any cracks are discovered, and not patch the airframe.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 06:30
by spazsinbad
Some Goshawk T-45C stuff on this thread and of course the usual (it is faskinatin' how people want to be experts in 1v1 --- I BLAME TOPGUN!): viewtopic.php?f=54&t=24031&p=273474&hilit=Goshawk#p273474

BASIC FIGHTER MANEUVERING SECTION ENGAGED MANEUVERING
FLIGHT TRAINING INSTRUCTION T-45 STRIKE

Oct 2012 CNATRA P-1289 (Rev. 10-12)

Source: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/pubs/folder5/T45/P-1289.PDF (3.4Mb)

BeKuz it is a DoD USN website there is a problem with the 'security certificate' a common feature on these DoD sites - so get past it by ignoring the warning etc.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 11:30
by cantaz
neurotech wrote:I'm well aware that the F/A-18 is capable of more than the 7.5Gs authorized. The Swiss F-18 variant has a few structural upgrades and is cleared to 9Gs.


On legacy Hornets, is there a G limiter or just an over G warning? Any good sources on what the Swiss did to their Hornets?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 11:46
by madrat
spazsinbad wrote:BeKuz it is a DoD USN website there is a problem with the 'security certificate' a common feature on these DoD sites - so get past it by ignoring the warning etc.


Yeah, government entities are poor at maintaining certificates AND encryption standards. Doesn't give me a lot of faith in their 'secure' nature.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 13:54
by hornetfinn
I love how F-35 is supposed to have very poor maneuverability and raw performance still after all the data coming from real world testing. There seem to be a lot of people who keep telling everybody that F-35 can’t maneuver or can’t accelerate even though:

- It has been proven to be able to handle 110 degree angle of attack. How an earth can some aircraft do that and not be highly maneuverable?
- It has been proven to be able to pull 9 G’s. How an earth can some aircraft do that and not be highly maneuverable? Especially considering the AoA capabilities
- It has T/W ratio (A-model) about equal or superior to Dassault Rafale, any model F-16, any Su-27 variant and most F-15C versions. How an earth can some aircraft do that and not have a lot of power available?
- F-16 is used as an "aggressor" to test BFM. Why do that if F-35 wasn't highly maneuverable?
- Experienced test pilots (with experience with very high performance fighter jets like F-16, F-22 and EF Typhoon) seem to be highly pleased with the way the aircraft flies, accelerates and maneuvers.

I think people are still thinking that the acceleration and sustained turn rate figures were the best the F-35 could do and compare them to what F-16 or similar fighter jets could do. They do not understand that those figures were with some specific weapon and fuel load which likely was not that light (especially given F-35 huge internal fuel load) and would encumber any fighter a lot.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 14:34
by vilters
@ hornetfinn

Agreed for the most part but. The 110 alfa does not prove a lot in energy management.

OK, the F-35 "can" pull 110°, but all A/C are left as sitting ducks at 110° (rather as dropping ducks), with no energy left whatsoever, for the next minute or so.
Energy management is more important then pure alfa numbers.
How fast can you regain the lost energy?

All is OK if that 110° gives you the shot. After that it's all about the time to rebuild the lost energy ASAP.

Just like "G".
"G" has no meaning at all.

Some aircraft turn way inside 9G pulling F-16's turns while pulling only 7 G.

(Less drift, less slip. They stay "in" the turn and do not slide out as the F-16 with its relatively small wing does.)

To turn, wing aera and power to sustain the turn are more important then pure "G".

The pilot in the "7G" plane has to suffer a lot less, is still turning inside, and "waiting" for the "9 G" pulling F-16 to apear in front of its nose.

The results of DACT where not Always in favor of the higher "G" airplane.
Often the F-16 has to revert to brute power and go vertical to "escape".

PS: I use the F-16 as an example but it "IS" the best all around A/C ever build.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 16:01
by zero-one
Well lets take Doc Nelson's statement for what is, we've established that the F-35 has impressive high Alpha performance, and could actually do more which is an option for future blocks. What does this mean?

Well it means they have confirmed that the F-35 has at least one major strength if it ever ends up in a phone booth, high Alpha performance.

Now the critics will have to change their arguments from "the plane can't maneuver" to "fine she has impressive AOA abilities, but can she maintain energy, and how large is her 5,6,7, or 9G envelope...etc

Now the chances of the plane maintaining energy is really quite high, u got a lot of thrust coming out of the motor with very little to no parasitic drag to speak of. What about base drag? well remember an internally armed F-35A has better subsonic acceleration than a clean F-16C, so that means base drag must be very low.

remember the Top speed of the F-35 is for a combat configured F-35, so Im guessing the max G load is also for a combat configured F-35.

I'm pretty confident that this will be an F-16 with high AOA

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 17:37
by strykerxo
I have asked on other threads about an acceleration requirement early in the program, but have not heard much about it. It was in one of the B.S. books so it is hard to say to a high degree of confidence whether it was a hard characteristic. Paraphrasing "the F-35 should accelerate 100 knots in 500 feet", does anyone know of or have documentation of the requirement. My assumption is that this would allow an advantage in the "slow" arena, getting in and out of maneuvering states quickly, engaging and disengaging at will.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 17:49
by jjk
spazsinbad wrote:...
MANEUVERING ENGAGEMENTS Vol. I - Methodology
Sep 1976 Walter R. Nunn, Richard A. Oberle, CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES, Operations Evaluation Group

"SUMMARY - INTRODUCTION
Air-to-air warfare capability is an integral part of the U.S. defense capability, and recent experience in both Southeast Asia and the Arab/Israeli conflicts reemphasizes the need for continual, comprehensive aircrew training in this type of combat. The U. S. has schools in which fighter pilots receive instruction in air combat maneuvering (ACM) and, more recently, instrumented ranges have been developed to expand our training capability. Regretfully, the analysis community has been slow in developing a unified methodology for evaluating a total system (aircraft, aircrew, weapon system, and tactics) during training. The main reasons for the difficulty are: (1) the complexity of air-to-air scenarios, (2) differences between training and actual combat, and (3) difficulties in reconstructing air-to-air engagements for analysis. [ :mrgreen: AND HOW TO MAKE MOVIES OF SAME! :devil: ]
..."

Source: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/ ... 770100.pdf (2.8Mb)


That was almost forty years ago, we might be able to do a bit better today... :D
(better cameras, better flight data recorders/visualizers etc...)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 18:03
by spazsinbad
Yes and forty years is a long time for technology. However I can see by all the input on these endless 1v1 threads is that most people have little idea of what it might be like. Fair enough. I myself know little or nothing about a lot of things. About 1v1 ACM (only DACT with RAN jets dissimilar to A4G which is not much and one sortie against a Mirage IIIO) I know heaps. We did a lot because of our role as 'poor man fleet defender' which included air to ground - but NOT as some have imagined - all we did. Anyway 1v1 is a physically gruelling exercise for the pilot. As explained earlier the aircraft approach and depart one another at high speed and yes they do slow down sometimes but more often than not the opposing aircraft will be at the limit of pilot ability to see it - coming or going - then be in his face & - if he is lucky - behind same.

Our A4G Skyhawk had no ability to carry out BVR (except being directed by ship/ground radar to target to become visual) then only WVR was our speciality.

I did see an F-15 movie clip (it is in my PDF about A4G 4.4GB) but I think it was snaffled from a regular movie and not Youtube. Maybe the clip is there now. I could put it online I suppose. It shows some of the issues; but one does not know anything about airspeed/G/orientation. So to me it seems a bit useless for the purposes described above.

What has impressed me is another clip (I can put online) again taken from a movie, perhaps not online, that shows the simulation in the debriefing at an instrumented tactical range. Now I think this would be more useful/instructive because all the parameters are shown and can be replayed - slowed down - 'freezed' etc. to better understand what is going on at any moment in the engagement. Just seeing aircraft (without context of all of the above) is useless IMHO. But go ahead - make my day - get LM/JPO/Hollywood/Bollywood to make such a move ala whatever takes your fancy. Because it probably has not been done I will reckon it is because 'it ain't easy'. Such is life.

Unfortunately the only copy of the clip of the tactical range is very poor quality so not worth putting anywhere but attached here: IF you are quick one can PLAY movie then Right Mouse Click on it to select ZOOM for a better view

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 18:07
by charlielima223
Greetings!
Long time reader first time poster. Really enjoy the subject matter, maturity, and the wealth of knowledge.

The aviation week article was very enlightening.

Whenever people often throw out the claim that it "can't turn and can't run", that tends to put a wild hair on my 4th point of contact. I always ask, "what are you comparing it too and in what context"? Living in Las Vegas I am fortunate to attend the open house air show here at Nellis AFB whenever I can every year. Last year I saw the static display of the F-35A being tested by the Test and Evaluation Group 422nd. I got the chance to speak with a former F-15E pilot now testing the F-35A. He said that if both aircraft were armed with 2 sidewinders, 2 amraams, 2 1000lbs bombs, 18000lbs of fuel, and both were at full mil power (didn't give the altitude) ; the F-35A can almost keep up with his F-15E. That blew my mind away.

So reading this article with its high AoA and hearing first hand about the F-35A's acceleration, the F-35 is definitely no slouch. So it stands to reason that all 3 variants can become a very formidable close dog fighter. So no the F-35 is not an F-22, Typhoon, or a Su-35 at an airshow doing maneuvers that seem ballistic.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 19:12
by basher54321
cantaz wrote:On legacy Hornets, is there a G limiter or just an over G warning?



There is a G limiter and override switch according to the natops.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 20:12
by sferrin
charlielima223 wrote:He said that if both aircraft were armed with 2 sidewinders, 2 amraams, 2 1000lbs bombs, 18000lbs of fuel, and both were at full mil power (didn't give the altitude) ; the F-35A can almost keep up with his F-15E. That blew my mind away.


Not to mention the F-35 will probably fly further.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 20:13
by strykerxo
charlielima223 wrote:Greetings!
Long time reader first time poster. Really enjoy the subject matter, maturity, and the wealth of knowledge.

The aviation week article was very enlightening.

Whenever people often throw out the claim that it "can't turn and can't run", that tends to put a wild hair on my 4th point of contact. I always ask, "what are you comparing it too and in what context"? Living in Las Vegas I am fortunate to attend the open house air show here at Nellis AFB whenever I can every year. Last year I saw the static display of the F-35A being tested by the Test and Evaluation Group 422nd. I got the chance to speak with a former F-15E pilot now testing the F-35A. He said that if both aircraft were armed with 2 sidewinders, 2 amraams, 2 1000lbs bombs, 18000lbs of fuel, and both were at full mil power (didn't give the altitude) ; the F-35A can almost keep up with his F-15E. That blew my mind away.

So reading this article with its high AoA and hearing first hand about the F-35A's acceleration, the F-35 is definitely no slouch. So it stands to reason that all 3 variants can become a very formidable close dog fighter. So no the F-35 is not an F-22, Typhoon, or a Su-35 at an airshow doing maneuvers that seem ballistic.


The F-22 can also preform all demo maneuvers at combat loads, too

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 22:50
by neurotech
cantaz wrote:
neurotech wrote:I'm well aware that the F/A-18 is capable of more than the 7.5Gs authorized. The Swiss F-18 variant has a few structural upgrades and is cleared to 9Gs.


On legacy Hornets, is there a G limiter or just an over G warning? Any good sources on what the Swiss did to their Hornets?

The F/A-18 has a G Limiter (G-LIM warning if exceeded) and a G Limiter override switch.

The Swiss F-18s have some bulkheads and structural components in the wing roots made out of titanium, not aluminum. They also have changes to the FCS, for increased G Limit. The Swiss F-18s were originally restricted from carrying A/G weapons, partly for political reasons, which also allowed the expanded envelope. The Swiss jets were upgraded later on for A/G weapons carriage, although not with 9G envelope.

From "The Great Book of Modern Warplanes", edited by Mick Spick
Swiss F/A-18C/D Models, powered by F404-GE-402 engines are virtually straight off the shelf,but with a couple of unusual modifications.In Switzerland the Hornet is used for Air Defence only, and their aircraft are thus devoid of air-to-surface kit.But the ensuing weight savings were eaten up by the use of titanium fuselage bulkheads instead of aluminium alloy,which increases airframe life by another 2000 hours.The Swiss are not known for rapid aircraft replacement, and thus look like a typical example of Helvetian thrift. Almost certainly the Swiss will still be operating Hornets in 2030, long after they have been retired elsewhere


As far as I can tell, the F-22A (& maybe F-35A) have a real 9G envelope with A/G weapons loaded.

If you want to see "real" BFM, go watch the Jetstream series on YouTube. They showed the CF-18 pilots learning how to dogfight.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 04:40
by charlielima223
sferrin wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:He said that if both aircraft were armed with 2 sidewinders, 2 amraams, 2 1000lbs bombs, 18000lbs of fuel, and both were at full mil power (didn't give the altitude) ; the F-35A can almost keep up with his F-15E. That blew my mind away.


Not to mention the F-35 will probably fly further.


Different airshow different time... (MCAS Miramar 2009)
They had the F-22 demo team there. Though not talking to the pilot just taking in the awsome display of :D MURICA power that is the F-22 :D I over heard a spectator talking with one of the demo pilots inquiring about the range. The pilot didn't delve too much into details. Tried to keep it simple for us laymen to understand. Essentially the F-22 was designed to have the same operational range (many people I have seen seem to confuse operational ranges with ferry ranges) as an F-15C. Because the F-22 has more efficient engines and has a very sleek design, F-22 can go a little further then what the manual told them.
So if all F-35 variants have a "standard" operational load out (all weapons internal with the exception of current block AIM-9X and missionized gun pod for STOVL and CATOBAR) and a full internal load of fuel. I would make a SWAG (scientific wild a$$ guess) that a F-35 with a low drag "sleek" body (when compared to current aircraft with similar load and fuel) and an engine that is design with better efficiency at mil power, would have slightly better range then what is said on paper.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 04:53
by spazsinbad
Not only that with the finely manufactured outer mold line getting sleeker as the aircraft wears it in (and with the engine perhaps getting slightly less powerful at same time but factored in we have been told [Oz Parliament]) then 'lookin' good.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 04:56
by charlielima223
strykerxo wrote:
The F-22 can also preform all demo maneuvers at combat loads, too


the announcer and pilots are always quick to mention at airshows that the F-22s are already configured for combat.
Image
Image

all pictures are at Nellis BTW :)

back to the topic at hand... the F-35 :)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 07:37
by hornetfinn
vilters wrote:@ hornetfinn

Agreed for the most part but. The 110 alfa does not prove a lot in energy management.

OK, the F-35 "can" pull 110°, but all A/C are left as sitting ducks at 110° (rather as dropping ducks), with no energy left whatsoever, for the next minute or so.
Energy management is more important then pure alfa numbers.
How fast can you regain the lost energy?

All is OK if that 110° gives you the shot. After that it's all about the time to rebuild the lost energy ASAP.

Just like "G".
"G" has no meaning at all.

Some aircraft turn way inside 9G pulling F-16's turns while pulling only 7 G.

(Less drift, less slip. They stay "in" the turn and do not slide out as the F-16 with its relatively small wing does.)

To turn, wing aera and power to sustain the turn are more important then pure "G".

The pilot in the "7G" plane has to suffer a lot less, is still turning inside, and "waiting" for the "9 G" pulling F-16 to apear in front of its nose.

The results of DACT where not Always in favor of the higher "G" airplane.
Often the F-16 has to revert to brute power and go vertical to "escape".

PS: I use the F-16 as an example but it "IS" the best all around A/C ever build.


I agree with that, but my point is that F-35 has all the tools to have very good raw performance even in close-in dogfights:
- has very high AoA capability and seems to be extremely controllable in such situations (low speed maneuverability)
- has high G capability (instantaneous and sustained turn)
- has enough power to at least keep up with pretty much any fighter out there (sustained turn and vertical performance)

It seems like F-35 can do it all very well when it comes to fighter maneuverability. I think that when all these things are taken into account and F-35 didn't have very good close-combat maneuverability, it would be quite miraculous engineering achievement. I think F-35 will surprise a lot of people (both professional pilots and general public) when it gets to show all its potential in exercises and also air shows.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 08:25
by KamenRiderBlade
hornetfinn wrote:
vilters wrote:@ hornetfinn

Agreed for the most part but. The 110 alfa does not prove a lot in energy management.

OK, the F-35 "can" pull 110°, but all A/C are left as sitting ducks at 110° (rather as dropping ducks), with no energy left whatsoever, for the next minute or so.
Energy management is more important then pure alfa numbers.
How fast can you regain the lost energy?

All is OK if that 110° gives you the shot. After that it's all about the time to rebuild the lost energy ASAP.

Just like "G".
"G" has no meaning at all.

Some aircraft turn way inside 9G pulling F-16's turns while pulling only 7 G.

(Less drift, less slip. They stay "in" the turn and do not slide out as the F-16 with its relatively small wing does.)

To turn, wing aera and power to sustain the turn are more important then pure "G".

The pilot in the "7G" plane has to suffer a lot less, is still turning inside, and "waiting" for the "9 G" pulling F-16 to apear in front of its nose.

The results of DACT where not Always in favor of the higher "G" airplane.
Often the F-16 has to revert to brute power and go vertical to "escape".

PS: I use the F-16 as an example but it "IS" the best all around A/C ever build.


I agree with that, but my point is that F-35 has all the tools to have very good raw performance even in close-in dogfights:
- has very high AoA capability and seems to be extremely controllable in such situations (low speed maneuverability)
- has high G capability (instantaneous and sustained turn)
- has enough power to at least keep up with pretty much any fighter out there (sustained turn and vertical performance)

It seems like F-35 can do it all very well when it comes to fighter maneuverability. I think that when all these things are taken into account and F-35 didn't have very good close-combat maneuverability, it would be quite miraculous engineering achievement. I think F-35 will surprise a lot of people (both professional pilots and general public) when it gets to show all its potential in exercises and also air shows.


I think it'll surprise the enemy / haters more than the public

=D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 14:20
by zero-one
charlielima223 wrote: I got the chance to speak with a former F-15E pilot now testing the F-35A. He said that if both aircraft were armed with 2 sidewinders, 2 amraams, 2 1000lbs bombs, 18000lbs of fuel, and both were at full mil power (didn't give the altitude) ; the F-35A can almost keep up with his F-15E. That blew my mind away.


A few questions here how are these things loaded on both aircraft.

The F-15E has a max internal fuel load of 13,500 lbs, so is it carrying EFTs or CFTs?
as far as I know, all strike eagles have CFTs, so Im guessing its the latter,

and for the F-35A, is it carrying those GBUs internally or externally?

Im guessing it has the GBUs and the slammers internally with the sidewinders externally,

also it looked more like the pilot was comparing sustained cruise speed not acceleration,
if so, it looks like at light combat loads the F-15E is still superior to the F-35A (at least slightly)

I thought the F-35A should be superior to all 4th gens when we start hanging weapons on em.

how does an F-16 compare to an F-15E anyway when it comes to acceleration and sustained cruise speed?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 17:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
An analysis I did used some similar numbers. The both aircraft having 2 x 2,000# bombs, both with full fuel minus that needed to fly 500nm, and the F-35 not carrying Sidewinders. With those differences I see the F-15E at Mil pushing .97M at higher alt and .99 at 20,000ft. I see the F-35 pushing 1.2M+ in each case.

Beagle analysis vs anecdote
analysis had larger and draggier weapons, targeting pods, only 14,600# fuel remaining,
total of 1,400# lighter weight in analysis but with more drag than the anecdote.

Stubby analysis vs anecdote
analysis had heavier internal bombs but no external weapons, only 12,400# fuel remaining
total of 3,580# lighter in analysis and with less drag than the anecdote.

So, I'm not really that surprised. Altitude plays a roll too as in my analysis at 20,000ft the speed difference was .25M while at 36,000ft it was .3M

Edit: Oh and the F-16 could only cruise at .92M-.87M at 20k and 36k respectively and took significantly more time to accelerate from cruise to 1.2M

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 18:20
by jjk
From the article that started this thread:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers (Apr 2, 2015)
Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director:
“It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

From an article of yesterday:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/ ... 4C20150407 (APRIL 7)
Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, the two-star general named in January to oversee all things F-35 for the Air Force:
"We are already considering and thinking through what are some of the technologies that will be part of the F-35,"

( for an explanation of this last statement see: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... cence.html )

What is going on,... IOC in a few months time,...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 18:49
by archeman
jjk wrote:From the article that started this thread:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers (Apr 2, 2015)
Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director:
“It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

From an article of yesterday:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/ ... 4C20150407 (APRIL 7)
Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, the two-star general named in January to oversee all things F-35 for the Air Force:
"We are already considering and thinking through what are some of the technologies that will be part of the F-35,"

( for an explanation of this last statement see: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... cence.html )

What is going on,... IOC in a few months time,...


"IOC in few months"...... for the F-35B. But you quoted a USAF general. He is less interested in that airplane, because his service doesn't fly them.

Also, they plan to have that F-35 platform around for a very very long time so they are indeed looking at the future and how to equip it for that future.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 19:05
by gabriele
Giovanni de Briganti, really...? He's worse than Sweetman. He will jump at each and every chance to try and take the piss about the F-35.

Thinking about future upgrades for the F-35 is pretty normal. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that we are talking of changes happening anytime soon. For example, we know the USAF funded next generation engine is going to be sized to be an easy slot-in replacement for the current F-135. Perfectly sensible, since the F-35 is going to make up most of the inventory for many years into the future. Is it going to come online anytime soon becase the F-135 is "obsolete"? I don't think so. That's usual de Briganti crappy spinning.

F-35 and upgrades are supposed to be one. Beyond Block IV, there is an ambition to keep upgrading the software every two years or so, introducing more capability all along, with hardware changes happening, when necessary, at greater time intervals to make good use of planned depot maintenance stops.

It is good news, not bad news.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 19:10
by mrigdon
jjk wrote:( for an explanation of this last statement see: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... cence.html )

What is going on,... IOC in a few months time,...


Wow, the ignorance is stunning. I guess the guys at defense-aerospace must think the F-35 is like an iPhone and if we wait long enough, they'll be free on contract :roll:

Of course the Air Force is looking at future upgrades for the F-35. This is a plane that's going to be in service for FIFTY YEARS. At least. Who knows how long the F-35 will actually end up serving. Nobody thought the B-52 would be around for fifty years, much less the seventy years that the current airframes will have on them when they finally retire. The B-52 has hardly stayed the same, avionics-wise. In fact, because they didn't plan for a long lifespan (how many Air Force planes served more than ten years in the 60s?), they've been stuck with the same inefficient turbofan engines they rolled off the line with. Obviously, the Air Force doesn't want that to happen again.

But way to take one general's comment completely out of context and spin it into an admission of some glaring weakness.

archeman wrote:
"IOC in few months"...... for the F-35B. But you quoted a USAF general. He is less interested in that airplane, because his service doesn't fly them.


The F-35 is so software dependent, that the services are going to be a lot more interested in the other variants than they were with other planes. They're doing a good deal of training together and will be collating all that maintenance data together so that all the services can benefit. If the Air Force general has any sense (and I imagine he does), then he very much cares about how the IOC for the F-35B goes. All of the weapons software that was accelerated into 2B so that the Marines could get up and running is the same code that goes into the Air Force 3i code for IOC.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 20:14
by jjk
archeman wrote:
jjk wrote:From the article that started this thread:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers (Apr 2, 2015)
Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director:
“It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

From an article of yesterday:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/ ... 4C20150407 (APRIL 7)
Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, the two-star general named in January to oversee all things F-35 for the Air Force:
"We are already considering and thinking through what are some of the technologies that will be part of the F-35,"

( for an explanation of this last statement see: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... cence.html )

What is going on,... IOC in a few months time,...


"IOC in few months"...... for the F-35B. But you quoted a USAF general. He is less interested in that airplane, because his service doesn't fly them.

Also, they plan to have that F-35 platform around for a very very long time so they are indeed looking at the future and how to equip it for that future.


So USAF doesn't bother that USN's F-35 IOC doesn't work.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 20:15
by archeman
mrigdon wrote:
jjk wrote:

archeman wrote:
"IOC in few months"...... for the F-35B. But you quoted a USAF general. He is less interested in that airplane, because his service doesn't fly them.


The F-35 is so software dependent, that the services are going to be a lot more interested in the other variants than they were with other planes. They're doing a good deal of training together and will be collating all that maintenance data together so that all the services can benefit. If the Air Force general has any sense (and I imagine he does), then he very much cares about how the IOC for the F-35B goes. All of the weapons software that was accelerated into 2B so that the Marines could get up and running is the same code that goes into the Air Force 3i code for IOC.


I take your point mrigdon, the good General does have a lot of integration activities and reporting coordinating duties, and does Care about the project progress intended to assist the Marines on their 'B' IOC. He won't loose his job if the 'B' should stumble on the way to 'IOC-land' however. And that would be unlike the hot lights that will shine on him directly if there are 'A' project issues. That is what I meant about him being LESS interested in the B than the A.

I originally brought that up because the poster above didn't seem to grasp that there were different airplanes and was mixing information and quotes freely (assisted by the shifty and dubious reporting methods of one Mr de Briganti).

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 20:20
by archeman

"IOC in few months"...... for the F-35B. But you quoted a USAF general. He is less interested in that airplane, because his service doesn't fly them.

Also, they plan to have that F-35 platform around for a very very long time so they are indeed looking at the future and how to equip it for that future.


So USAF doesn't bother that USN's F-35 IOC doesn't work.


"Doesn't work"

WOW

You may need to define that just a little bit better.
I don't think that you will get very far creating a believable scenario where MARINE version of the F-35 will not be vastly superior to the aircraft that they are replacing.

Just give it a try.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 00:16
by spazsinbad
A great overview of PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE air combat is contained herein (mentioned - or will be - multiple times here
TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY
18 Feb 2015 JOHN STILLION CSBA

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf (10Mb)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 07:37
by spazsinbad
Back in the dreamtime FEB of Round Table West 2014 Conference about the F-35 this F-35C test pilot LCDR Burks (sniff) was trash talking the Cee for all to hear: Main ONE HOUR VIDEO HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=461ug8Jjn-0
Joint Strike Fighter Roundtable: What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say?
Published on Feb 12, 2014 DODnews

"Joint Strike Fighter Roundtable: What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say? at the WEST 2014 Conference.
Moderator: Mr. Ward Carroll, Editor-in-Chief, Military.com
- CDR Luke Barradell, USN Fleet Intergration Team and Operations Officer Carrier Air Group ELEVEN (CVW-11)
Panelists: - LCDR Michael Burks, Senior Navy Test Pilot for F-35
- CDR Frederick Crecelius, Commanding Officer, VFA-101
- William Gigliotti, F-35 Lighting II, FW Site/Production Lead Test Pilot Lockheed Martin Corporation
- LtCol Steve Gillette, Commander Officer, VMFA-121. (1hr)"

Sound excerpt - ONLY - about F-35C, wot has comparable performance to a clean no tanks Super Hornet below:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2015, 18:16
by gabriele
In a post in the official norwegian ministry of defence JSF programme blog, the norwegian captain Morten Hanche, test pilot on F-35 with a background on F-16s in the 338 Squadron RNoAF, writes some about how an F-35A compares to the Viper in air to air. Unfortunately in norwegian, but the translation to english is decent. Best passage in my opinion is this, as it provides some numbers:

[translated on Google]

Pierre Spey and other critics have pointed out that the F-35 is not as fast or maneuverable as modern Russian fighter. In a previous section I argued that the performance of the F-16 at air display is theoretical and not available in a war situation. Combat aircraft like the F-16 carries the load out. This reduces the practical range, speed, maneuverability and maximum altitude. (This also applies to your opponent's aircraft, which carries the load out).
F-35 will have a performance with weapons that far exceeds what we have with the F-16 today.

With the F-35, we get more of all this, compared to what we are used to today. To discover how much more was a positive surprise for me. In full war equipment operates F-35 effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16 can, without using afterburner. The speed in 'cruises' is without further 50 to 80 knots higher. In the F-16, I must use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot. F-35 "cruiser" both faster and higher. Therefore, I am ready to shoot far anytime.

F-35 also has more fuel than we are accustomed to, it carries the load inside and is not as dependent on afterburner. Therefore we are left with more range than the F-16 and similar aircraft can achieve. "Combat radius" for the F-35 is between 30% and 70% longer than we get with the F-16! The extra range comes in handy in our elongated country. Range may alternatively be replaced in endurance over a given area. This is useful for our little organization, which disposes tanker and relies on versatility in all aspects.


http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/201 ... #more-1050

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2015, 18:33
by SpudmanWP
Which is what many have been saying for the longest time, ie while the F-35 might no have the best "clean" kinematics, it's "wartime" configuration is better than most 4th gen airframes.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2015, 19:01
by spazsinbad
At the 'gabriele' post above there is this photo. What a classic: http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/fil ... -01-23.jpg
Photo Caption: “Here Coach Morten called "Air Combat manouver" against another Norwegian F-16. F-35 will also operate this way, but with future sensors and weapons will F-35 could settle a dogfight long before it is discovered by your opponent. Photo: Morten Hanche

Source:http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/04/20/moderne-luftkamp-the-right-stuff-top-gun-eller-noe-helt-annet/#more-1050

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2015, 19:04
by basher54321
Good blog - like his sprinter analogy


If an opponent with " old-fashioned " radar signature meets an aircraft as the F-35 , with very small radar signature , it becomes difficult to exploit the benefits that provides superior performance . Imagine a meeting between a highly trained sprinter and a sniper . The mission is to shoot counterpart. Both are armed with hunting rifles , but only marksmen have riflescope . Sprinter has to return a more powerful rifle , but he is dressed in neon colored tracksuit , and takes up on the short end of a football field. Marksman is camouflaged somewhere on the opposite end. Sprinter is the fastest and the most powerful rifle , but what is he shooting at ? While sprinter gallops across the track in search of his opponent , he must take shot after shot . This is not a smooth match. Unfortunately I have found that it is extremely frustrating to train to dogfight when we can not find the opponent with its own sensors. It ends rarely well ..

-

My point with this post was to show that many variables affect the outcome of the dogfight. The situation is rarely black and white. One of the most diffuse might skill of the individual pilot. I am often surprised when I read cocksure posts in newspapers and comment fields. Common to many such posts is a "digital" interpretation of performance data. A speed XY, B rate YY = A is best, period . One problem is the source data referenced. Another is that it tends to focus on a few isolated parameters. Our experience with the F-35 so far has shown us a fighter that will surprise many in air-to-air role. The combination of high performance, good sensors and low signature makes the F-35 to a dangerous opponent in air campaign. Finally; remember that even Arnold Schwarzenegger had to resort to lavsignatur in the old classic "Predator." When using mud. Brute strength is good, but camouflage also works ...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2015, 19:10
by basher54321
spazsinbad wrote:At the 'gabriele' post above there is this photo. What a classic:


Nice - IRIS-T on the F-16AMs stbd wing as well.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2015, 19:44
by spazsinbad
A Six Page 0.4Mb PDF made with/from the GOOGLE TRANSLATE function of the original website is attached below.

Modern air combat; The Right Stuff, Top Gun or something else entirely NORWAY pp6.pdf (0.4Mb)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2015, 20:20
by spazsinbad
Another good quote from the article above is this one near the end (btm page 4 in the PDF above):
"...The outcome of a dogfight between two identical fighter decided finally by the individual pilot. It requires time and significant resources to cultivate a skilled pilot. Especially important is perhaps a steady supply of flying time, a good and constructive learning environment, access to appropriate airspace and an organization that facilitates training. During exercises have my colleagues in the Air Force and I many times flown against more modern fighter than our F-16. Yet, "wins" we occasionally air war against more advanced adversaries, technically speaking. Often the explanation is that we meet inexperienced pilots. More interesting is perhaps when we meet pilots with completely different culture for learning and collaboration. My impression is that cultures where the distance from the conductor to lead is large, fail to cultivate equally skilled pilots. In such highly hierarchical organizations it is perhaps impossible to be honest with your boss in "debriefing" after the flight. Therefore they miss out on important learning...."

I can only go on my experience in the RAN FAA where honesty counted between pilot / maintainer ranks not only for ACM but for all aspects of a flight - not only but also FLIGHT SAFETY. This (as I have mentioned earlier) one of the great changes of culture from the 'say nothing' old RN FAA influence (a bad generalisation but worthwhile for my purposes here) to the new 'shine a light' USN NATOPS culture for FLIGHT SAFETY - ACM Honesty with the A4G/S2E era. BZ RAN FAA.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2015, 19:19
by gabriele
How convenient: War is Boring supposedly has a damning 5-page report on the mock dogfight which proves the F-35 is terrible. We can't see the document, of course, and the test pilot who wrote it is "unnamed".

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-p ... db9d11a875

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2015, 19:33
by spazsinbad
In above article the test was in Jan 2015 - no note of the software Block loaded (along with a bunch of other details) what struck me as very odd was this almost penultimate paragraph quoted: [no mention of the geewhiz DAS avionics in F-35?]
"...And to add insult to injury, the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit.
“The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.”


That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him...."

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2015, 19:46
by gabriele
Well, january is the month when air combat trials versus F-16 were made, according to earlier reports. We also know that AF-2 was used, apparently with the final flight envelope opened up. The test pilot, who talked about it to AviationWeek later on, was David “Doc” Nelson.
War is Boring does not have the name of the author of the supposed document they talk about.

This is what Nelson said to Aviationweek a while ago:
“When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.


http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-te ... -maneuvers

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2015, 19:58
by spazsinbad
That does not tell us the avionics capability of the aircraft however. IF DAS with HMDS was not able to be used then - yes - as ONE former F-16 jock transitioning to the F-35 several years ago now, with some basic hardware/software only in the 'first training evaluation' mentioned: that HE could not see behind and 'would be gunned every time' or words quoted to that effect by all and sundry. With DAS / HMDS functioning there is no way the F-16 can 'sneak up' on the F-35 - that is just plain ludicrous. I'll guess that quote comes from the 'years ago' initial training eval but of course NOT SEEING THIS FIVE PAGE report - that could be easily uploaded for verification - then I will surmise that the mouthbreathing AXE has only excerpted some bits and made up the other bits. BUT I COULD BE TODALLY RONG and a dancing fool. What does AXE write that engenders his trustworthiness/truthfulness? NOW a quote from that AvWeak article mentioned above:
"...The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA...."

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2015, 20:08
by gabriele
That's why i said "how convenient". We have to take Axe's word for everything he has written, since for some reasons we have no test pilot name, no document, no nothing.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2015, 20:09
by bring_it_on
Surely Axe could black out the name of the pilot and upload the entire report in totality. Might not fit his agenda but still....;)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2015, 22:35
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:That does not tell us the avionics capability of the aircraft however. IF DAS with HMDS was not able to be used then - yes - as ONE former F-16 jock transitioning to the F-35 several years ago now, with some basic hardware/software only in the 'first training evaluation' mentioned: that HE could not see behind and 'would be gunned every time' or words quoted to that effect by all and sundry. With DAS / HMDS functioning there is no way the F-16 can 'sneak up' on the F-35 - that is just plain ludicrous. I'll guess that quote comes from the 'years ago' initial training eval but of course NOT SEEING THIS FIVE PAGE report - that could be easily uploaded for verification - then I will surmise that the mouthbreathing AXE has only excerpted some bits and made up the other bits. BUT I COULD BE TODALLY RONG and a dancing fool. What does AXE write that engenders his trustworthiness/truthfulness? NOW a quote from that AvWeak article mentioned above:
"...The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA...."


The reference to "...dont...clamp down so tight..." means that the current control laws are biased toward departure resistance at the expense of some elements of maneuverability. In order to provide a high degree of departure resistance some features of maneuverability/agility (e.g. pitch onset rate) are attenuated as one gets close to a notional limit. As noted in the April article, some of those things will be tweaked. Is part of the normal drill in DT.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2015, 23:31
by playloud
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-p ... db9d11a875
But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.


I just can't buy this. This goes against everything we have read to this point. Were the tanks empty? Even then?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 00:56
by lookieloo
gabriele wrote:How convenient: War is Boring supposedly has a damning 5-page report on the mock dogfight which proves the F-35 is terrible. We can't see the document, of course, and the test pilot who wrote it is "unnamed".

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-p ... db9d11a875
Said document didn't happen to come in the form of golden plates did it? :roll:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 00:59
by bring_it_on
And here they seek (they as in the basement dweller commonwealth) transparency and want nothing to ever be held back, but when it comes to accusations they hold the single source they claim and then want everyone to "take their word for it". How convenient :roll:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 01:13
by cantaz
How does someone like Axe even vet these anonymous sources? If someone were to drop him an email with some anonymous, outrageous, completely death-spiralling claims about the F-35, would he take it at face value? :whistle:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 01:19
by spazsinbad
:devil: Yeah BUT... we would know "If someone were to drop him [AXE] an email with some anonymous, outrageous, completely death-spiralling claims about the F-35, would he take it at face value?" it was sent by SNAFUsolomon. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 01:26
by lookieloo
Axe may have fallen for a counter-trolling operation. Anyone remember that thing with Sasha Grey supposedly being KIA in service of the Donetsk Republic?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 01:38
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 03:25
by SnakeHandler
Which block of software was AF-02 flying with? It's not still a Block 1 jet, is it?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 03:50
by SpudmanWP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 06:41
by zero-one
Not to sound all negative, but could the Report be true?

There were some strange similarities to the first report by Doc Nelson. Right off the bat, David Axe's article did mention that the plane executed the excercise in January, which was confirmed by the original report on Aviation week.

Then David Axe's report did mention that they had problems with Pitch Authority, which coincided with Doc Nelson's Statement that you can "tweek" the software to provide more maneuverability, and that the designers dont have to clamp down so hard on AOA limits.

Anyway, this article will be another major headline in the days to come with fan boys and haters claiming it as undeniable proof of the F-35's performance.

Look out, Picard will be out there reading this with a hugh grin on his face

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 07:32
by spazsinbad
Report may well be true but SHIRLEY given in a context - which is lacking - this detail is required - selective quoting by AXE doan cut it AND it is testing, as noted. People do lots of odd things in testing - for test purposes. Why not be patient and see how the '3F' aircraft goes against an F-16? Nope we gotta get out there with the crapola eh - AXEman - 'Fess up.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 07:37
by johnwill
I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that AF-02 does not have any of the high powered avionic SA capability installed. There is no reason to install it in the flight sciences airplane, primarily dedicated to structural loads maneuvering flight test. My structural loads test airplane in F-16 FSD flight test was A-2. It had no radar, no HUD, no gun, no RWR, with other non-essential equipment missing that I can't remember. All the missing equipment was properly ballasted to maintain correct CG and mass distribution.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 07:40
by KamenRiderBlade
Axe with his normal stupid schitck of "Anonymous Sources"

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 07:56
by spazsinbad
Mr. Gilmore has the clue...
J. MICHAEL GILMORE Statement at HASC
05 Mar 2015

"...In general, using Block 2B F-35 aircraft, pilots would operate much like early fourth generation aircraft using cockpit panel displays, with the distributed aperture system providing limited situational awareness of the horizon, and heads-up display symbology produced on the helmet....

...Fusion of information from on-board sensors and data from off-board aircraft (both F-35 aircraft in formation via the multi-function advanced data link (MADL) and other aircraft via Link 16) is planned to be much more capable and would provide better battlespace awareness than that being fielded with Block 2B..."

Source: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/ ... 150414.pdf (300Kb)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 08:51
by quicksilver
Lotsa denial around here.

My expectation is that someone leaked the flight test report. Axe's reporting, of course, perhaps by intent and certainly out of partial ignorance -- is wholly out of context. Flight test report...reporter -- like giving a monkey a watch.

DT flight (Doc Nelson is a DT guy), vanilla BFM set-ups (how many around here have done any of that? Right...not many). Clean Viper with two drops is no slouch, and (reminder alert) the F-35 was designed to have aero performance similar to...(?)...that's right, an F-16.

It didnt get beat up, but it demonstrated some areas where the flight control laws can be less restrictive because its departure recovery characteristics are so good. Maneuver potential and agility have to be balanced against handliing qualities, the ability to maintain control, departure resistance, and structural loads. That's what Doc Nelson was referring to in the April article when he talked about the clamping down and the tweaking.

(Another reminder alert) modern fighters arent going to make any money in a shooting war, gunfighting -- not the F-22, not the EF, not the SH...not the F-35. But it sure is fun to wrestle around with some extra JP in restricted airspace for a few minutes. It sure incites the interweb warriors too.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 09:09
by munny
Wow, RT used his blog as a source?

http://rt.com/usa/270583-f-35-cant-win-dogfight/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 09:22
by Corsair1963
Considering the US Government is just about ready to place a massive multi block purchase of F-35's. I guess we shouldn't be surprised! Which, begs the question on who payroll is David Axe???? :shock:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 10:11
by uclass
Good 'ole RT LOL. :doh: :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 12:19
by bigjku
quicksilver wrote:Lotsa denial around here.

My expectation is that someone leaked the flight test report. Axe's reporting, of course, perhaps by intent and certainly out of partial ignorance -- is wholly out of context. Flight test report...reporter -- like giving a monkey a watch.

DT flight (Doc Nelson is a DT guy), vanilla BFM set-ups (how many around here have done any of that? Right...not many). Clean Viper with two drops is no slouch, and (reminder alert) the F-35 was designed to have aero performance similar to...(?)...that's right, an F-16.

It didnt get beat up, but it demonstrated some areas where the flight control laws can be less restrictive because its departure recovery characteristics are so good. Maneuver potential and agility have to be balanced against handliing qualities, the ability to maintain control, departure resistance, and structural loads. That's what Doc Nelson was referring to in the April article when he talked about the clamping down and the tweaking.

(Another reminder alert) modern fighters arent going to make any money in a shooting war, gunfighting -- not the F-22, not the EF, not the SH...not the F-35. But it sure is fun to wrestle around with some extra JP in restricted airspace for a few minutes. It sure incites the interweb warriors too.


I would agree with this. F-35 to me is in large part an aircraft that says rejects that energy based dominance of the prior generation. It says that what is most important is LO and situational awareness not swinging the nose around to lay a gun on someone. That isn't the fight its built for. It will be competent at that but that isn't why it is built how it is.

You are putting your faith in LO, sensors and group awareness. And I am comfortable with that.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 12:48
by optimist
There was a report from a couple of F-16 pilots before about the rear vision, they were flying block 1B without EODAS. The questionnaire report is filled out as per the findings. No doubt the current report will be written properly, but context is everything. The F-35s 'will' know what's behind them without visually looking, going from what is said about the SA.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 12:53
by uclass
Source is incorrect (as if nobody knew that already), the first BFM flight against F-16s happened in April.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 13:01
by gabriele
optimist wrote:There was a report from a couple of F-16 pilots before about the rear vision, they were flying block 1B without EODAS. The questionnaire report is filled out as per the findings. No doubt the current report will be written properly, but context is everything. The F-35 group 'will' know what's behind them without visually looking, going from what is said about the SA.


Even when DAS imagery is fully operational on the helmet, though, won't turning your head around still be necessary to actually have it display what's to your back and, more importantly, aim the short range AAMs? The way i understand it, you see through obstacles, but you have to turn your head in the direction that intests you (also because it would be horribly disorientating to have helmet visor imagery not in sync with what you are doing, i'm guessing).
You can have the rear imagery on a portion of the cockpit screen, but it is not as intuitive and wouldn't allow missile aiming...?

If it is a matter of DAS imagery being not yet available it is only a temporary problem. If you can't physically turn around in the cockpit to take an over the shoulder look (and potentially shot), like Axe says, then it would be a whole different issue. But from photos such as this, i wouldn't think Axe has it right:

Image

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 13:03
by sferrin
bigjku wrote:I would agree with this. F-35 to me is in large part an aircraft that says rejects that energy based dominance of the prior generation.


That would explain the F-35 having the 9G turning ability of the F-16 and high AOA capability of the Super Hornet. :doh:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 13:04
by gabriele
uclass wrote:Source is incorrect (as if nobody knew that already), the first BFM flight against F-16s happened in April.


That's not what David "Doc" Nelson and others told AviationWeek, though. The interview was in april, but he says very clearly the flight dates back to January.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 13:21
by bigjku
sferrin wrote:
bigjku wrote:I would agree with this. F-35 to me is in large part an aircraft that says rejects that energy based dominance of the prior generation.


That would explain the F-35 having the 9G turning ability of the F-16 and high AOA capability of the Super Hornet. :doh:


That is its max load. That is vastly different from being a great energy fighter that sustains high g turns without losing speed. The energy era fighters are really more about sustained turns and carrying speed than max load. That is just the easy one to remember. I have no doubt the F-35 is competent in ACM as we know it today. But I don't think that is how the F-35 is going to fight. I think it's tactics will, once developed, be vastly different and much more defensive. Turn away and leverage DAS for a missile shot. Then use your opponent being defensive to either engage on your terms or get clear.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 13:31
by sferrin
bigjku wrote:
sferrin wrote:
bigjku wrote:I would agree with this. F-35 to me is in large part an aircraft that says rejects that energy based dominance of the prior generation.


That would explain the F-35 having the 9G turning ability of the F-16 and high AOA capability of the Super Hornet. :doh:


That is its max load.


Why would you need it if you can't reach it?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:09
by uclass
gabriele wrote:
uclass wrote:Source is incorrect (as if nobody knew that already), the first BFM flight against F-16s happened in April.


That's not what David "Doc" Nelson and others told AviationWeek, though. The interview was in april, but he says very clearly the flight dates back to January.

Source for that?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:13
by cantaz
gabriele wrote:Even when DAS imagery is fully operational on the helmet, though, won't turning your head around still be necessary to actually have it display what's to your back and, more importantly, aim the short range AAMs? The way i understand it, you see through obstacles, but you have to turn your head in the direction that intests you (also because it would be horribly disorientating to have helmet visor imagery not in sync with what you are doing, i'm guessing).


The aircraft is what ultimately knows (before the pilot does) where the targets are through all the sensors and the fusion process, the HMDS acts like a monitor and mouse combo so the aircraft can tell the pilot what his target options are and the pilot can tell the aircraft which target he wants to select. Of course, pointing the helmet at something is just one option for communicating intent to the aircraft, HOTAS, touch screen and voice being two others. Therefore, use head pointing when it's practical (i.e. not under G load), use something else when it's not.

You can have the rear imagery on a portion of the cockpit screen, but it is not as intuitive and wouldn't allow missile aiming...?


How so? They've been using rear view mirrors on fighters since nearly the beginning of air combat.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:19
by cantaz
quicksilver wrote:Lotsa denial around here.


My problem is with the likelihood that a legitimate report would be leaked to that particular outlet. I find it strange that someone would look for a monkey to give a watch to.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:38
by munny
Bill seems to think F-35 fans are going to be crushed in a few days time. Willing to bet his report cherry picks from the report and fails to link to the entire document.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:43
by uclass
The real stand-out stinker is that is says the F-16 has 2 drop tanks. Now the F-16 with 2 drop tanks is limited to 5.5g unless I'm wrong?? And the F-35A can pull 9g.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 15:10
by playloud
uclass wrote:The real stand-out stinker is that is says the F-16 has 2 drop tanks. Now the F-16 with 2 drop tanks is limited to 5.5g unless I'm wrong?? And the F-35A can pull 9g.

Well, the article also doesn't mention if there is any fuel in the tanks. That would make a difference.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 15:14
by Gums
Salute!

Maybe John Will can confirm, but the Vipers I flew up thru Bk 15 had 9 gee bags.

Gums tries to remember.....
( I lent out my Dash One and poof!)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 15:27
by optimist
cantaz wrote:
gabriele wrote:Even when DAS imagery is fully operational on the helmet, though, won't turning your head around still be necessary to actually have it display what's to your back and, more importantly, aim the short range AAMs? The way i understand it, you see through obstacles, but you have to turn your head in the direction that intests you (also because it would be horribly disorientating to have helmet visor imagery not in sync with what you are doing, i'm guessing).


The aircraft is what ultimately knows (before the pilot does) where the targets are through all the sensors and the fusion process, the HMDS acts like a monitor and mouse combo so the aircraft can tell the pilot what his target options are and the pilot can tell the aircraft which target he wants to select. Of course, pointing the helmet at something is just one option for communicating intent to the aircraft, HOTAS, touch screen and voice being two others. Therefore, use head pointing when it's practical (i.e. not under G load), use something else when it's not.

You can have the rear imagery on a portion of the cockpit screen, but it is not as intuitive and wouldn't allow missile aiming...?


How so? They've been using rear view mirrors on fighters since nearly the beginning of air combat.


The f-35s aren't using rear vision mirrors fitted and I guess it's because they aren't needed.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 15:57
by gabriele
uclass wrote:
gabriele wrote:
uclass wrote:Source is incorrect (as if nobody knew that already), the first BFM flight against F-16s happened in April.


That's not what David "Doc" Nelson and others told AviationWeek, though. The interview was in april, but he says very clearly the flight dates back to January.

Source for that?


“When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”


http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

How so? They've been using rear view mirrors on fighters since nearly the beginning of air combat.


I might be wrong, but we never heard a thing about aiming SRAAMs missiles from the main display. All high-angle aiming of missiles these days is done through the helmet mounted sight, as far as i know, and i don't think it is intended to be different for the F-35.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 16:29
by SpudmanWP
Any weapon can be aimed using the main tactical display. You do not have to use the helmet to cue a missile.

The whole reason why helmet cuing came into existence was because the plane lacked the sensors to detect or track off-bore targets. With EODAS & off board targeting that is no longer the case.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 16:36
by sirsapo
Gums wrote:Salute!

Maybe John Will can confirm, but the Vipers I flew up thru Bk 15 had 9 gee bags.

Gums tries to remember.....
( I lent out my Dash One and poof!)


Vipers these days (Blk 40/42 and 50/52) are 7.0G until the tanks are dry then 9.0G with an empty centerline or 8.5 with empty wing tanks. Not sure if that has changed since back in the day though Gums...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 16:53
by Gums
Salute!

You are on to something, Spud-man.

We are not back in the early 70's or late 60's when laying out the requirements for the Eagle and Viper. Hell, the Stubbie has about the same vis as the Double Ugly or Sluf or Thud. We were amazed and happy when the Eagle and Viper showed up with such awesome vis.

The off-boresight stuff/capability prolly only has a requirement for 100 degrees left or right of the nose. So that's where cueing from the helmet counts. Looking over your shoulder is not the optimum scenario, so use the sensors and get some separation, turn back into the fight and shoot. Your cosmic missile is not gonna do a 180 to hit the enema.

Over at Foxtrat Alpha, the clueless folks are having a field day with the issue and I can not believe anyone that can figure out the forum format and type does not have a clue about the F-35. They don't even know about live fire missile and JDAM tests or mostly anything else. Talk about basement dwellers, sheesh.

We need to set up a scenario for them as with Clancy's "Rainbow Six" solution for the greenies, set up the arena for a CAS/capture the flag scenario within an average technological country they are invading and let them fly their Hogs and Rhinos and Eagles and Vipers and Tiffies against a small number of Raptors and Stubbies over said country with an average IAD that has one or two of the "latest", but mostly 'raqi One missiles and manpads. They may try this at Red Flag, and MD and I can tell you what will happen.

The next week we reverse and have our Raptors and Growlers and Stubbies and Bones try the same thing against their identical IAD and 3rd/4th gen assets.

As far as BFM and ACT go, the gees and instant AoA are neat, but what counts is sustained turn rate and maintaining energy. The "awareness" of the playing field is prolly the best thing going for the Stubbie, and is better than the Raptor. Having a low RCS is the icing on the cake.

Gums opines...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 16:59
by Dragon029
gabriele wrote:Even when DAS imagery is fully operational on the helmet, though, won't turning your head around still be necessary to actually have it display what's to your back and, more importantly, aim the short range AAMs? The way i understand it, you see through obstacles, but you have to turn your head in the direction that intests you (also because it would be horribly disorientating to have helmet visor imagery not in sync with what you are doing, i'm guessing).
You can have the rear imagery on a portion of the cockpit screen, but it is not as intuitive and wouldn't allow missile aiming...?


Because it's a digital system there's a myriad of potential ways they could display the imagery - for example, rather having imagery on the cockpit panoramic display, you could have a panoramic rear view in your visor, or a little hemispherical one down in the corner, considering that you only really need to know where they are relative to you. From there you've got HOTAS and voice controls that can handle the selection of targets. The enemy starts to get too close to the center of that hemispherical view, just say "Target One, Fox Three" and off goes a missile towards the guy chasing you.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 17:01
by uclass
gabriele wrote:
uclass wrote:Source for that?


“When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”


http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

How so? They've been using rear view mirrors on fighters since nearly the beginning of air combat.


I might be wrong, but we never heard a thing about aiming SRAAMs missiles from the main display. All high-angle aiming of missiles these days is done through the helmet mounted sight, as far as i know, and i don't think it is intended to be different for the F-35.

Seems like rubbish to me. No pilots mentioned anything about a fight in January.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 17:48
by zero-one
A lot of people have been going on for years of how useless E-M is in a network centric environment,

"information is life, speed is irrelevant" and "if you're still measuring fighters by it's speed and maneuverability then you are
old and missing the point."


Now we hear something that might say the F-35 is a step backwards in E-M, and we're suddenly up in arms.

What happens if the F-35 does turn out to be less maneuverable than 4th gen fighters?

If the next war turns out to have more WVR encounters than expected should we be worried?
The US still has their Raptors
most of NATO has Typhoons, Rafale's or Grippens
Australia still has Rhinos
SKorea and Japan have F-16s and F-15s


Let them take care of Air superiority,

The F-35 can stick to it's main role as a mud mover.
It can gather info and data link it to real fighters but it won't go out and hunt bandits.
Self defense will be the main concern of F-35 crews in the air, Avoid other aircraft, keep your distance at all cost.
If a fight can't be avoided, keep it at BVR.

OF course all of this is only true if David Axe's report was accurate or even true at all

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 18:31
by newmanfrigan
There is no evidence to back up anything David Axe is implying.

If there even is such a report, it has been cherry-picked to suit the wannabe-journalist's agenda. We all know what that is; anti-"Military Industrial Complex".

So an F-16 got on an F-35s 6? That means nothing without the context. nothing whatsoever.

I've long stopped paying attention to the critics, who have proven to be ill-informed luddites by and large, usually people who have NEVER served. That means a lot to me. If you haven't served, or you don't have some kind of academic expertise with verifiable credentials, you're just a fanboy. Sorry. Those are just the facts. They weren't right about the Osprey, F-22 (actually, they played a role in killing it, but now they love it), the M1 Abrams, the Superhornet. They weren't even right about the F-15. These are professional contrarians and click-bait agitators. Rest assured, the F-35 program is long past the point where these voices in the wilderness have any weight at all. The programs been over the hump for about 5 years now and there is no going back. These fanboy voices don't resonate anywhere outside of internet enthusiast forums. Trust me. If you were active duty and didn't check these forums, it would be as if these ideas didn't even exist. The argument only exists online and in certain governments during election years.

There is no controversy. It doesn't matter what distortion, falsification, or selective editing of any report is made. The credible sources do not support their positions.

I expect that if this report exists at all, we have just had a selective editing, or extreme cherry-picking with salacious scandals implied, dropped on a dumbass internet population of nerds and dweebs who've never worn a uniform in their life. Their opinions don't matter.

We don't need to argue about it anymore. It's over. The F-35 is the future of tactical fighter aviation globally. Next time maybe we'll check and see if David Axe agrees with our plans, and if Sweetie-pie Bilbo, with all his military experience, approves.

Or not.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 19:34
by johnwill
Gums wrote:Salute!

Maybe John Will can confirm, but the Vipers I flew up thru Bk 15 had 9 gee bags.

Gums tries to remember.....
( I lent out my Dash One and poof!)


Depending a little bit on missile load, with 2 370s, symmetric g is 6.5 with fuel, 9 empty. Roll g limit is 4.5 and 6, respectively.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 19:46
by uclass
playloud wrote:
uclass wrote:The real stand-out stinker is that is says the F-16 has 2 drop tanks. Now the F-16 with 2 drop tanks is limited to 5.5g unless I'm wrong?? And the F-35A can pull 9g.

Well, the article also doesn't mention if there is any fuel in the tanks. That would make a difference.

It might if it were in any way likely.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 20:23
by spazsinbad
On page 8 of this thread 'Gums' says:
"...Gums tries to remember..... ( I lent out my Dash One and poof!) "


I would be lost without my NATOPS (Dash One). Our work day most often started after morning briefing with a NATOPS quiz - always good value but after 40 odd years of zilch need to know - nada without NATOPS. :-)

On page 7 of this thread 'gabrile' said:
"Even when DAS imagery is fully operational on the helmet, though, won't turning your head around still be necessary to actually have it display what's to your back and, more importantly, aim the short range AAMs? The way i understand it, you see through obstacles, but you have to turn your head in the direction that intests you (also because it would be horribly disorientating to have helmet visor imagery not in sync with what you are doing, i'm guessing).
You can have the rear imagery on a portion of the cockpit screen, but it is not as intuitive and wouldn't allow missile aiming...?

If it is a matter of DAS imagery being not yet available it is only a temporary problem. If you can't physically turn around in the cockpit to take an over the shoulder look (and potentially shot), like Axe says, then it would be a whole different issue...."


Then other commenters said stuff with 'SWP' saying on page 8:
"Any weapon can be aimed using the main tactical display. You do not have to use the helmet to cue a missile.

The whole reason why helmet cuing came into existence was because the plane lacked the sensors to detect or track off-bore targets. With EODAS & off board targeting that is no longer the case."


BTW the LM White Paper PDFs here have excellent info on the cockpit displays: http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/

To answer 'gabriele': over on the 'AVIONICS' sub-section of this forum there is a long thread named "Helmet-mounted Display". Searching here one may find a bunch of stuff. To my mind any article mentioning the main Cockpit Display Designer Genius MIKE SKAFF will have some great info. For example:

Searching on 'Skaff' gives three worthwhile entries with this one mentioning the White Papers of LM: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221823&hilit=Skaff#p221823

Searching on word 'virtual' (for 'virtual HUD' or vHUD) click on 'quicksilver' comment here: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=234157&hilit=virtual#p234157

Some 'spaz' references here: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221812&hilit=virtual#p221812

The first couple of hits on search term 'rear' on this thread have surrounding good info.

Here this comment is worth repeating: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221823&hilit=Skaff#p221823
The F-35 Cockpit: Enabling the Pilot as a Tactical Decision Maker
"Dr. Michael L. Skaff created this briefing. Skaff described his background in a recent interview as follows: I was an F-16 pilot out of the Air Force Academy. I was prior enlisted, and I’ve been with Lockheed Martin for about 23 years working on the F-35 cockpit since ’95. I flew out of MacDill, Shaw, and Luke during the Cold War. For a full discussion with Skaff regarding the baseline F-35 please see:
[http://www.sldinfo.com/understanding-the-basic-f-35-what-is-in-the-baseline-aircraft/]

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... ion-maker/

End of page quote below is about the last two graphics as seen above (13th & 14th slides).

"...The HMD with vHUD opens the view into over 41000 square degrees. This is the full sphere surrounding the aircraft.

The thirteenth slide provides an example of the vHUD when the pilot looks directly forward where a physical HUD would be. F-35 pilots report that in about 10 minutes they become accustomed to the vHUD. The pilots recognize the potential improvements in lethality and survivability of the HMD.

The final slide provides an example of off axis symbology...."

SLIDES mentioned (edited) are reproduced below but also similar and other example vHUD graphics on this thread cited (look above the entry here:) viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=221823&hilit=Skaff#p221823

Graphics of vHUD below have come from: http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/t ... t/download

First view is REAR with minimal symbology - a switch enables front/rear view - mostly will be front view and rear as required.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 20:28
by zero-one
Okey I know Social media will be in chaos with this news for the next few days So I made a little copy pasta for people who will use this as "proof" that the F-35 is a failure.

Anyone here can use it as they want.
Please add or subtract anything as you see fit.

copy pasta wrote:Okey everyone seems to be to caught up with this report that they forgot to ask themselves if it's true in the first place.

The basis of this report was from a post on "War is boring". A blog by David Axe who is a known F-35 critic.

David cites an "unnamed pilot" who gave him "secret documents" that says the F-35 is inferior to the F-16.

And we are simply supposed to believe this because.....why again?

There are many pilots who refute this claim.

Lt. Col. O'mally from the 59th test and evaluation squadron says the F-35 combines the best flying characteristics of the F-16 and F/A-18.
Read here:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24245766/ ... lightening

The Norwegian airforce claims that in A-A configuration the F-35 is just as good or better than the F-16.

Topgun instructor Lt.Col Matthew Kelly and Brig Gen. Gary Thomas say that the F-35 will be comfortable at any type of dogfight
Read here:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... erformance

Test pilot Billy Flynn who flew F-16s, F/A-18s and Typhoons say that F-35 can match those aircraft in any maneuvering metric and surpass them in some.

These guys have staked their names and reputation on their claims.

But here we are believing some blogger with his imaginary friend who says otherwise.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 20:34
by Smithsguy
Someone post this over to Foxtrot Alpha? They echoed the "not as good" piece recently.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 20:37
by spazsinbad
'zero-one' this URL does not work: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24245766/ ... lightening

Apart from the atrocious spelling of 'lightening' can you please give us the article title for an internet search or a unique sentence quote will help with this search also. Thanks.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 20:46
by coldman
zero-one wrote:Okey I know Social media will be in chaos with this news for the next few days So I made a little copy pasta for people who will use this as "proof" that the F-35 is a failure.

Anyone here can use it as they want.
Please add or subtract anything as you see fit.

copy pasta wrote:Okey everyone seems to be to caught up with this report that they forgot to ask themselves if it's true in the first place.

The basis of this report was from a post on "War is boring". A blog by David Axe who is a known F-35 critic.

David cites an "unnamed pilot" who gave him "secret documents" that says the F-35 is inferior to the F-16.

And we are simply supposed to believe this because.....why again?

There are many pilots who refute this claim.

Lt. Col. O'mally from the 59th test and evaluation squadron says the F-35 combines the best flying characteristics of the F-16 and F/A-18.
Read here:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24245766/ ... lightening

The Norwegian airforce claims that in A-A configuration the F-35 is just as good or better than the F-16.

Topgun instructor Lt.Col Matthew Kelly and Brig Gen. Gary Thomas say that the F-35 will be comfortable at any type of dogfight
Read here:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... erformance

Test pilot Billy Flynn who flew F-16s, F/A-18s and Typhoons say that F-35 can match those aircraft in any maneuvering metric and surpass them in some.

These guys have staked their names and reputation on their claims.

But here we are believing some blogger with his imaginary friend who says otherwise.

Another good one that you missed were the comments made by Lt Col Lee Kloss who went on record that the F-35A has superior maneuverability than a loaded block 50/52 viper

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... dre-start/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 21:01
by zero-one
spazsinbad wrote:'zero-one' this URL does not work: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24245766/ ... lightening

Apart from the atrocious spelling of 'lightening' can you please give us the article title for an internet search or a unique sentence quote will help with this search also. Thanks.


You're right, Sorry Spaz, I saved that link a long time ago for one of my many copy pastas. But it looks like 8newsnow has deleted the article.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 21:26
by gabriele
Graphics of vHUD below have come from: http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/t ... t/download


Interesting document there, i hadn't seen it. Thanks.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 23:37
by Gums
Salute!

John Boy has confirmed some of my memory. The lower gee limit with gas still in the tanks may not have been a z-axis limit, but a rolling gee problem. He will know. Turns out in most cases that pulling symmetric gees with ord on the wings actually reduces stress on the wing spars. We saw that on the A-37, BTW. The up lift from wing is countered by the ord on the wing stations that "weight" more.

One thing about the BFM test was the comment about tweaking the sfwe. We learned that in 1979 and 1980 with the Viper. It was hard to remember the rolling gee limits and such. We were spoiled rotten flying clean jets or some with the centerline tank for Bees. So we tweaked the FLCS sfwe and got the "Cat III" switch. The FLCS then limited Aoa and roll rates and combinations if we were carying mudbeater loads.

The biggest harm we hamburgers did in the early days was to roll a lot while pulling max gee. Max AoA rolls at 25 degrees AoA were not a problem, as we were only at one gee ( Nz). Nevertheless, you could depart the jet at max AoA and with a heavy store on one wing and commanded max roll rate. John Boy can comment upon this problem we had.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 00:01
by spazsinbad
Oops on the broken link in my post above - here it is: TEXT on this page is now attached as a PDF - but not with SLIDES! FIRST PDF has TWO Pages on one WIDE page whilst the second SAME pdf has just two 'portrait sized' pages for convenience.

The F-35 Cockpit: Enabling the Pilot as a Tactical Decision Maker

"...The remaining slides look at the role of the helmet [with vHUD - now in HMDS III] within the cockpit system.

• The twelfth slide shows the Helmet Mounted Display. The vHUD being projected onto the visor is new technology and will change tactical employment. The jump from 3rd gen fighters to 4th gen brought a full head-up display.

The HUD was a paradigm shift, which dramatically improved lethality and survivability. In similar fashion the jump to 5th gen with a vHUD is a paradigm shift and has the potential to revolutionize employment. A physical HUD projects into about 1200 square degrees of battlespace directly in front of the aircraft. The HMD with vHUD opens the view into over 41000 square degrees. This is the full sphere surrounding the aircraft.

• The thirteenth slide provides an example of the vHUD when the pilot looks directly forward where a physical HUD would be. F-35 pilots report that in about 10 minutes they become accustomed to the vHUD. The pilots recognize the potential improvements in lethality and survivability of the HMD.

• The final slide provides an example of off axis symbology. In general, Lockheed only take key flight parameters and tactical symbology off axis. In the future Lockheed will investigate off axis attitude awareness symbology. The mil standards don’t yet address HMDs and off axis symbolgy. Lockheed will work with the Services to improve and update The standard as well as the HMD symbology."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... ion-maker/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 01:20
by KamenRiderBlade
newmanfrigan wrote:There is no evidence to back up anything David Axe is implying.

If there even is such a report, it has been cherry-picked to suit the wannabe-journalist's agenda. We all know what that is; anti-"Military Industrial Complex".

So an F-16 got on an F-35s 6? That means nothing without the context. nothing whatsoever.

I've long stopped paying attention to the critics, who have proven to be ill-informed luddites by and large, usually people who have NEVER served. That means a lot to me. If you haven't served, or you don't have some kind of academic expertise with verifiable credentials, you're just a fanboy. Sorry. Those are just the facts. They weren't right about the Osprey, F-22 (actually, they played a role in killing it, but now they love it), the M1 Abrams, the Superhornet. They weren't even right about the F-15. These are professional contrarians and click-bait agitators. Rest assured, the F-35 program is long past the point where these voices in the wilderness have any weight at all. The programs been over the hump for about 5 years now and there is no going back. These fanboy voices don't resonate anywhere outside of internet enthusiast forums. Trust me. If you were active duty and didn't check these forums, it would be as if these ideas didn't even exist. The argument only exists online and in certain governments during election years.

There is no controversy. It doesn't matter what distortion, falsification, or selective editing of any report is made. The credible sources do not support their positions.

I expect that if this report exists at all, we have just had a selective editing, or extreme cherry-picking with salacious scandals implied, dropped on a dumbass internet population of nerds and dweebs who've never worn a uniform in their life. Their opinions don't matter.

We don't need to argue about it anymore. It's over. The F-35 is the future of tactical fighter aviation globally. Next time maybe we'll check and see if David Axe agrees with our plans, and if Sweetie-pie Bilbo, with all his military experience, approves.

Or not.


My issue with these trash talkers is that they cause nothing but false propaganda. Every media outlet / would be journalist who spreads false propaganda needs to be sued for libel or something equivalent. We can't have idiots spouting nonsense without validation and let it spread. Then you get idiots who are up in arms.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 01:26
by zerion
Updated the copy pasta and added one.

copy pasta wrote:
Okey everyone seems to be to caught up with this report that they forgot to ask themselves if it's true in the first place.

The basis of this report was from a post on "War is boring". A blog by David Axe who is a known F-35 critic.

David cites an "unnamed pilot" who gave him "secret documents" that says the F-35 is inferior to the F-16.

And we are simply supposed to believe this because.....why again?

There are many pilots who refute this claim.

Lt. Col. Lee Kloos, commander of the 58th fighter squadron says loaded F-35 beats loaded F-16.
Read here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... dre-start/

The Norwegian airforce claims that in A-A configuration the F-35 is just as good or better than the F-16.

Topgun instructor Lt.Col Matthew Kelly and Brig Gen. Gary Thomas says that the F-35 will be comfortable at any type of dogfight
Read here:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... erformance

Former F-16 pilot Col De Smit says that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16
Read here:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=26752

Test pilot Billy Flynn who flew F-16s, F/A-18s and Typhoons say that F-35 can match those aircraft in any maneuvering metric and surpass them in some.

These guys have staked their names and reputation on their claims.

But here we are believing some blogger with his imaginary friend who says otherwise.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 01:36
by johnwill
Gums wrote:Salute!

John Boy has confirmed some of my memory. The lower gee limit with gas still in the tanks may not have been a z-axis limit, but a rolling gee problem. He will know. Turns out in most cases that pulling symmetric gees with ord on the wings actually reduces stress on the wing spars. We saw that on the A-37, BTW. The up lift from wing is countered by the ord on the wing stations that "weight" more.

Right on, Gums. The F-16 tanks are compartmented, fwd, ctr, aft. To maintain flutter resistance, the tank burn sequence is ctr, aft, fwd. So when you have a full forward bay, with empty ctr and aft, the tank pitch moment per g is very high at the pylon/wing attach point. An abrupt roll maneuver at high g has the same effect. Those loads result in reduced g limit with fuel in the tanks. Still met design specs.

One thing about the BFM test was the comment about tweaking the sfwe. We learned that in 1979 and 1980 with the Viper. It was hard to remember the rolling gee limits and such. We were spoiled rotten flying clean jets or some with the centerline tank for Bees. So we tweaked the FLCS sfwe and got the "Cat III" switch. The FLCS then limited Aoa and roll rates and combinations if we were carying mudbeater loads.

The biggest harm we hamburgers did in the early days was to roll a lot while pulling max gee. Max AoA rolls at 25 degrees AoA were not a problem, as we were only at one gee ( Nz). Nevertheless, you could depart the jet at max AoA and with a heavy store on one wing and commanded max roll rate. John Boy can comment upon this problem we had.

Departures are not really my thing, but what you say is correct. You mention rolling at high g. There was one thing in the flight control system I tried for years to change, but do you think flight control people would listen to a structures guy? The symmetric g limit was 9 for air to air without tanks, protected by the limiter. The g limit for full stick rolls was 6, but it was pilot responsibility not to exceed it. There is no specified g limit for partial stick rolls above 6g, so the pilot has no guidance about how much roll he can command above 6g. I finally was able to get a g/roll limiter put in F-16XL that allowed full roll command up to 7g, linearly reduced to half stick rolls at 9g. So with XL, the pilot could use any combination of pitch and roll command at any g with full protection. We put the same function in the Korean T-50 trainer - works great.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 01:48
by smsgtmac
I'm pretty sure QS called this right a couple of pages ago. The 'lie' ain't in whatever the test pilot wrote, it is in how it is being reported completely without context, with miscellaneous past examples of same. Others have already linked to the relevant April announcement concerning the January BFM exercise. The key to understanding what was really going on is in the pilot statements. David Axe is More Boring Than Ever (Bless His Heart)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 02:21
by Gums
Salute!

Thanks for the backup John Boy.

The comment by the F-35 test pilot is right on about the FLCS sfwe changes. Our early Eddurds folks did not fly enuf ACM missions to "tweak" the FLCS laws. But we early folks did it for them in 1979 and 1980, heh heh.

Funny thing about Cat III control laws was we could still pull 9 gees. BFD. Only 18 deg AoA, but enuf for a high "E" fight. As a mudbeater, I was more interested in handling with stores on each wing.

+++++++++++_++

The clueless folks over at Foxtrot Alpha define the "clueless" term. I registered but the forum is so wierd I can't tell if I actually posted. A Viper driver with over 20 years of flying got a post in, but nobody there cares. The guy knows current Raptor and Stubbie pilots. No response from the clones.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 11:41
by zero-one
fighter sweep wrote:
As one of our followers here on FighterSweep, you’re probably someone that likes to keep track of the latest news on America’s most advanced fighters–especially the stealthy, badass fifth-generation F-22 and F-35. More specifically, you’ve probably been keeping tabs on the development of the F-35–its setbacks, its achievements, and its march toward IOC. That also means you may have run across a very recent article that screams, “The F-35 can’t beat the plane it’s replacing in a dogfight!”
Related Posts

Latest F-35 Problem: Hot Fuel? (Update)
First F-35A Lightning II Class Begins
USAFWS Receives Its First F-35
Six Marine Corps F-35Bs Go To Sea
Milestone 500 Sorties for F-35 at Nellis AFB!!!

As a taxpayer, reading that probably pisses you off. After all, the F-35 acquisitions program is one of the most twisted and over-budget jobs programs in the history of the U.S. military. It’s late. It’s expensive. It’s bloated. It can’t even fly within twenty-five miles of a thunderstorm because they had to remove lightning protection to save on weight–a requirement for the Marines so they could take off and land vertically in the F-35B.

There are hundreds of valid complaints on this aircraft, but the latest clickbait headlines scattering social media aren’t among them; it’s as though suddenly everyone is Colonel John Boyd reincarnate and knows what the problem is.
NSAWC assets getting ready to depart Fallon NAS.

NSAWC assets getting ready to depart Fallon NAS.

Now, before we get into the why, let me first preface all of this by saying I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t work for Lockheed-Martin. I have nothing to do with the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps acquisitions process. As I mentioned in my Hornet versus Viper comparison, the Viper is my first love–so naturally I smiled a little when I read the headline.

But at the end of the day, I–just like every other fighter pilot out there–have to be fair.

First, let’s talk about what really happened. According to the article, an F-35A and a two-bag Block 40 F-16D took off on Jan 14, 2015 to engage in Basic Fighter Maneuver setups to test “the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment…this consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet.”

English please?

Just like a normal 1v1 proficiency sortie, the two fighters did canned setups to practice basic dogfighting. In the offensive setups, the F-35 would start off behind the F-16. At the specified range, the F-35 pilot would call “Fight’s On” and maneuver to the F-16’s control zone to employ weapons. In the defensive setups, the F-35 would start off in front while the Viper maneuvered to the F-35’s control zone. And finally, in the neutral (high-aspect) setup, the two aircraft would start completely neutral and fight until whatever DLOs (Designated Learning Objectives) they had were met, be they valid gunshots, valid missile shots, or whatever.
The Instructor Pilot in a Lockheed-Martin Block 40 F-16CM defends against an attacking student in a 6K Defensive BFM setup.

The Instructor Pilot in a Lockheed-Martin Block 42 F-16CM defends against an attacking student in a 6K Defensive BFM setup.

So while this particular article may lead you to believe the two aircraft went out there mano y mano and duked it out, the reality is that we don’t know where each deficiency was found. My guess is the critiques on the pitch rates for gunning and abilities to jink happened in the canned offensive and defensive setups. But one has to remember this is a test platform and they were out to get test data, not find out who the king of the mountain is.

The article talks about energy bleed rates, high-Alpha maneuvering, and the F-35 pilot’s “only winning move” to threaten with the nose at high angle of attack. What does that sound like?

To me, it sounds like a Hornet fighting a Viper. Of course, a Hornet is not going to do well against an F-16 in a sustained rate fight. Its strength is to get slow and use its angle of attack advantage, much like the F-35 did here. It also bleeds energy rapidly and struggles to get it back once bled down. The fact the heavier, drag-encumbered F-35 had this problem is not surprising to me–despite its monstrous amount of available thrust, and it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.

As for the helmet problem, I’m sure that’s an ergonomics issue that will be worked out in testing. It’s not “sneaking up” on anyone; the TTL driver likely went blind during the engagement. As they say, “Lose sight, lose the fight.”
"Dirt" Taxis his F-35A past the crowd during Aviation Nation 2014 at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

“Dirt” Taxis his F-35A past the crowd during Aviation Nation 2014 at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

This aircraft is still in its infancy. Tactics, techniques, and procedures that key on strengths and minimize weaknesses are just starting to be developed. Taking one report and proclaiming that the F-35 is a piece of FOD in the air-to-air arena is irresponsible and sensationalist at best. There are far too many other factors to look at.

For example, the test pilot was a former F-15E pilot. Two-bag Vipers do the same thing to Strike Eagles all day long. Maybe he was just used to it? I keed. I keed. But seriously, a guy with maybe 100 hours in the F-35 versus a guy with 1,500+ Viper hours? I’ve seen thousand-hour F-16 guys in two-bag D-models beat up on brand new wingmen in clean, single-seat jets. It happens. It’s the reality of the amount of experience in your given cockpit.

I’m sure internet debates will rage on. It’s fun to trash the new kid, especially the new kid that’s overweight, wears too much bling, and talks about how awesome it is all the time. It’s way too early to declare the F-35 the “worst fighter aircraft design ever imagined.” Please. Let’s see how it does when guys who are proficient in developed tactics do against guys with similar amounts experience–the realm of the bros in the operational test or Weapons School environment.

There’s plenty of room to criticize this program, but accuracy is important. The sky isn’t really falling, Chicken Little. And for the rest of you? Blow out your torches and hang up your pitchforks, for we have miles to go.



http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-1 ... e-garbage/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 15:24
by gabriele
The reply of the JPO:

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-p ... 10503378=1

The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.

Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.

The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.

The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 15:44
by mk82
The fightersweep article is generally spot on!

Meanwhile in David "F*ckwit" Axe's bizarro world: Test pilots and flight test engineers -> Woohoo!!! F16 is da best....Da shiznit....has a bigger schlong than the F35.....wait aren't the canned BFM sorties about verifying the F35's structural loads during BFM and finding out where we can optimise the F35's flight control software....oh whatdafugaboutit :shrug: ....we are in David Axe's f*cked up bizarro world!

I think David "f*cking putz" Axe forgot that the F16's flight control software needed optimisation too, especially in the early days (Thank you Gums!)

On an unrelated note, isn't the F35 cleared or about to be cleared to fly near thunderstorms (well less than 25 miles that is). The F35 did well in the simulated lightning (no pun intended :mrgreen: ) strike tests from what I understand.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 15:54
by blindpilot
mk82 wrote:
...

On an unrelated note, isn't the F35 cleared or about to be cleared to fly near thunderstorms (well less than 25 miles that is). The F35 did well in the simulated lightning (no pun intended :mrgreen: ) strike tests from what I understand.


If you listen to actual pilot reports, there is a side comment that they already are flying near storms, intentionally or casually, and that an F-35C was hit by real world lightning, without damage. etc. etc...

Too many people confuse test flight profiles, and controlled test environment limitations, as actual capabilities. They are not even on the same planet. But if these folks actually had - been there and done that - a few times, they would know this ... that they don't, says all that is needed concerning the knowledge and veracity of their reports.

BP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 16:05
by popcorn
FOUO?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 16:08
by gabriele
popcorn wrote:FOUO?


For Official Use Only, i think.

Disappointed that there is no rebuttal at all on kinematics observations. Okay the mission system, but unless there is some marked improvement tweaking flight laws, they appear to be substantially confirming that, despite the original requirements and promises, no, it won't handle like an F-16.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 16:09
by mk82
"There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology."

David Axe's mind -> Can't.....comprehend.......this......my.......brain......hurts :mrgreen: .

Seriously though would love to know more about those 4 v 4 scenarios. Looks like the Nellis Fighter Weapons School (probably MAWTS 1 and Navy "Topgun" too) dudes/dudettes are well on their way to establishing awesome TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures) for the F35. Must be frustrating for those any of those 4 F16 pilots :P

" The release of this FOUO report is being investigated"

Woe betide that "unnamed source" who released the actual report into the "wild".

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 16:14
by mk82
gabriele wrote:
popcorn wrote:FOUO?


For Official Use Only, i think.

Disappointed that there is no rebuttal at all on kinematics observations. Okay the mission system, but unless there is some marked improvement tweaking flight laws, they appear to be substantially confirming that, despite the original requirements and promises, no, it won't handle like an F-16.


Let's wait and see what a block 3F (production standard) F35A/B/C can do kinematically before we pass any judgment. The flight control software may actually need a lot of tweaking at this point in time.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 16:58
by XanderCrews
gabriele wrote:
popcorn wrote:FOUO?


For Official Use Only, i think.

Disappointed that there is no rebuttal at all on kinematics observations. Okay the mission system, but unless there is some marked improvement tweaking flight laws, they appear to be substantially confirming that, despite the original requirements and promises, no, it won't handle like an F-16.



The context of the statement seem to be pretty clear that AF-2 is not the "finished product" that will be dogfighting in the future.

F-16 like qualities are a KPP, and multiple test pilots have already mentioned both the F-16 and F-18 like qualities. Its been flown to Mach 1.6, tested to 9,9G, taken well in excess of the F-16 AoA etc.

So I would take a deep breath. The KPPs are a pretty big deal, if the aircraft falls short there are some serious processes that go into motion. They can't just fall short on a KPP and no one notices. They either have to change the KPP, or change the airplane to better meet them should it fall short-- but my point is, that will be a very public disclosure should that happen.

The bottom line is this was like matching a battleship against an aircraft carrier with no aircraft aboard on its shakedown cruise. The virtues that give the F-35 its superiority were not really existent in the test. Find any aircraft, take away its 3 top advantages and its going to lose against another aircraft that has its advantages still intact. Its not rocket science. This is why pilots never shut up about not "fighting his fight" and "using my advantage"

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 16:59
by XanderCrews
mk82 wrote:"There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology."

David Axe's mind -> Can't.....comprehend.......this......my.......brain......hurts :mrgreen: .

Seriously though would love to know more about those 4 v 4 scenarios. Looks like the Nellis Fighter Weapons School (probably MAWTS 1 and Navy "Topgun" too) dudes/dudettes are well on their way to establishing awesome TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures) for the F35. Must be frustrating for those any of those 4 F16 pilots :P

" The release of this FOUO report is being investigated"

Woe betide that "unnamed source" who released the actual report into the "wild".


No one like aviation week, has touched this story. And its not being carried by anyone other than bloggers.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 17:04
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:
No one like aviation week, has touched this story. And its not being carried by anyone other than bloggers.


RT, Popualr Mechanics and Daily mail.UK are taking the matter seriously already, more to follow soon

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 17:08
by zero-one
gabriele wrote:
popcorn wrote:FOUO?


For Official Use Only, i think.

Disappointed that there is no rebuttal at all on kinematics observations. Okay the mission system, but unless there is some marked improvement tweaking flight laws, they appear to be substantially confirming that, despite the original requirements and promises, no, it won't handle like an F-16.

Right, it seems all F-35.com said was.

The F-35 won't dogfight its a BVR interceptor, we are investigating the issue and will hold the culprit responsible for exposing this fact.

it's best if the general public wont see this response. If they wanted a BVR interceptor, they should of left out the gun and the 9G requirement.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 17:22
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:Right, it seems all F-35.com said was.

The F-35 won't dogfight its a BVR interceptor, we are investigating the issue and will hold the culprit responsible for exposing this fact.

it's best if the general public wont see this response. If they wanted a BVR interceptor, they should of left out the gun and the 9G requirement.


And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.


I read it a completely different way but that is just me

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 17:35
by madrat
Isn't the more valid question to a pilot being which would he rather be flying in when he enters hostile airspace?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 17:36
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:
zero-one wrote:Right, it seems all F-35.com said was.

The F-35 won't dogfight its a BVR interceptor, we are investigating the issue and will hold the culprit responsible for exposing this fact.

it's best if the general public wont see this response. If they wanted a BVR interceptor, they should of left out the gun and the 9G requirement.


And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.


I read it a completely different way but that is just me


Thing is, the point should have been to validate the JPO's claim on the JSF's kinematics that they've touted for so long.

Right now, it looks like they're avoiding the question altogether

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 17:44
by SpudmanWP
Read my lips, AF-02 was limited to 7g while the F-16 can do 9g.

This will not be the case in a combat representative Block 3F F-35A .

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 17:53
by Gums
Salute!

I feel LM is tap dancing about "dogfights".

I would take a jet that can pull 9 gees for a few seconds and go to a ridiculous AoA for a few seconds almost any day depending upon the enema. The guy posting on "fighter sweep" flew both Hornets and Vipers, so he got to see what the slow, high AoA capability offered. He still preferred the Viper. And BTW, we saw that early on with the Eagle, as Hornets were two years away or more. If you went vertical and slowed down faster than the Eagle, he could get the nose pointed and fire a "fall away jump shot". If it missed, then he was toast while trying to regain energy.

Difference between BFM and ACM and then ACT is a lot WRT what each player can do. BFM is just that "basic".

The biggest problem I have is the so-called test was with a FSD Stubbie with basically zero avionics. Even so, the scenarios could have been 20 miles separation and GCI for both players and Slammer ord plus a few AIM-9X. I will guarantee the Viper would be smoking wreckage at about 5 miles separation, and smoking wreckage can't reverse on anybody.

Still and all, nice to know I can pull 9 gees for a few seconds and exceed 40 or 50 deg AoA for a few seconds without departing.

Gums opines...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 18:07
by zero-one
SpudmanWP wrote:Read my lips, AF-02 was limited to 7g while the F-16 can do 9g.

This will not be the case in a combat representative Block 3F F-35A .


I thought Doc Nelson said that he was given "No limits"?

Thats what he said on the April eddition

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 18:15
by gabriele
SpudmanWP wrote:Read my lips, AF-02 was limited to 7g while the F-16 can do 9g.

This will not be the case in a combat representative Block 3F F-35A .



They used AF-2 right because it is the one F-35 which has already been flown to +9 and -3 G, so no. Unfortunately it is not the case. They would have said so in the JPO statement, otherwise.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 18:20
by SpudmanWP
That depends if they are talking about the same encounter and what "no limits" really meant.

This quote from the JPO response is the telling one:

While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner,


It acknowledges several things, that it was under "limits" and software was keeping it from exceeding them. Since AF-02 has either 2B or 3i, the limit in software is 7g and the flight control laws on how to behave from 7g to 9g have net been installed (part of 3F).

This line, "handle in a positive and predictable manner" also indicates that they were testing flight control laws and not just letting the pilot pull the F-35 any which way he chose.

What is clear is the DAxe pick a couple of sentences from a 5-page report and twisted them completely out of context to fit his anti-JSF bias.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 18:22
by SpudmanWP
gabriele wrote:
They used AF-2 right because it is the one which has already been flown to +9 and -3 G, so no. Unfortunately it is not the case. They would have said so in the JPO statement, otherwise.
AF-02 flew those profiles during "unrestricted" testing (ie, to see what the limits were) and do not represent what restrictions were in place during this test (see the post above).

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 18:23
by gabriele
SpudmanWP wrote:
gabriele wrote:
They used AF-2 right because it is the one which has already been flown to +9 and -3 G, so no. Unfortunately it is not the case. They would have said so in the JPO statement, otherwise.
AF-02 flew those profiles during "unrestricted" testing (ie, to see what the limits were) and do not represent what restrictions were in place during this test (see the post above).


Then they really need a better copy writing their messages. That is not what i read in the statement, and it is not what David Nelson told AviationWeek in April.
They should correct both, if that's the case.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 18:28
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
zero-one wrote:Right, it seems all F-35.com said was.

The F-35 won't dogfight its a BVR interceptor, we are investigating the issue and will hold the culprit responsible for exposing this fact.

it's best if the general public wont see this response. If they wanted a BVR interceptor, they should of left out the gun and the 9G requirement.


And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.


I read it a completely different way but that is just me


Thing is, the point should have been to validate the JPO's claim on the JSF's kinematics that they've touted for so long.

Right now, it looks like they're avoiding the question altogether


They can't validate the claims if its on a particular aircraft that can't validate those claims. The purpose of the test wasn't to go out there and beat the snot out of an F-16.

AS for the press release. I think they are trying to keep it succinct and avoid getting dragged into comparisons while emphasizing how the JSF is different.

If they are smart they do it just the way they did. Jumping in the mud to try and "out David Axe", David Axe is foolish. Moreover, their response could be 20 pages long and its not going to cover everything, so there is always going to be a "Weird they didn't mention ____________" It has to be digestible to the general public, or retarded enough for Foxtrot alpha people.

Its too bad that tests like this can't be done, because the public relations issues are exactly what you are seeing. It has to "win" no matter what. and of course if it doesn't you see exactly what you are seeing here.

There is going to be more that comes out about this I'm sure, and many more dogfights to see. You yourself posted a whole load of F-35 stats in the Copy Pasta thread just 6 weeks ago.

I'm just waiting. This is how the game is played. Hack makes accusation, usually with unnamed source, JPO, Government military, industry responds, SMEs show up and give their 2 cents a couple days later, and the whole thing goes to bed until the next "ZOMG" moment. Its fairly predictable at this point.

They would have said so in the JPO statement, otherwise.


Its written fairly broadly. They don't mention Gs or software. They aren't going to dive into that mud pit

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 18:33
by gabriele
They aren't going to dive into that mud pit


Really...? They had an answer as simple as "it was using Block 3I, it can't pull 9 G yet", and they didn't use it, instead ignoring the kinematic aspect althogether to say "it is really not meant to dogfight"...?
It makes absolutely no sense. By not answering in any way on kinematics, they can only be seen as in the losing position. In saying it is not meant for dogfight, they say a (partial) truth, but just make things worse.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 18:54
by gabriele
Now Axe has finally decided to put the document online: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-f ... 9a4e66f3eb

The only good thing it has to say is that control laws can be relaxed. The rest, is all unpleasant stuff.

The energy deficit is not going anywhere and can only get worse with weapons weight added, but pitch and yaw rate can hopefully be improved via relaxing the control laws.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 18:59
by zero-one
Ha Read the objectives!!!!

The obkjective was to test high AOA capabilities against a maneuvering target

Ofcourse your gona be at an energy disadvantage you're at High AOA!!!!!

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 20:28
by blindpilot
zero-one wrote:Ha Read the objectives!!!!

The objective was to test high AOA capabilities against a maneuvering target

Ofcourse your gona be at an energy disadvantage you're at High AOA!!!!!


More to the point, the testing was towards for example, resulting recommendations. Tweaking the onset rate of high AoA, addressing 20-30 deg AoA transistion behavior. These are tests, intended to provide real data, with results/recommendations for such things as software changes. The tests were framed/set up to those purposes. I am guessing such things as maintaining energy using a Hi Yo Yo was out of scope, for example? The instructions were to pull high AoA. In fact finding those EM boundary conditions was likely an objective that was specifically aimed at exceeding otherwise prudent manuever options, to get that data.

I can imagine it would be a bit tough as a test pilot to keep driving into "mushy," when the setting was "dogfight." But someone needs to find (and tweak) "mushy" before operational pilots go there. See the evolution of the F-22 tactics and pilots backing off using as much as Thrust Vectoring heavy manuevering as the new toy shine had earlier encouraged.

I could be wrong but I suspect the test pilot if he came forward would refocus his critical comment towards the purposes he meant them.

All that said, yes "high SA" multi-ship environment engagements, is the target goal over a rare if ever, "high AoA" 1 v 1 yank and bank. That doesn't mean they aren't going to tweak and maximize high AoA yank and bank. They will. That means there should be more tests intentionally driving the aircraft into "mushy." The insight I got from the report was for example, that they need to, and no doubt will, crank the onset rate up some, since airframe limits were not stressed, and adjust transition behavior some. That's the meaningful type info here.

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 20:50
by zero-one
I have a new Copy pasta guys, can you all review it before I spew it all over the Web? :D

Recommendations are welcome

copypasta wrote:
Reading the Objective for the test clearly states the reason why the F-35 was at an energy disadvantage when fighting the F-16.

"Objective: The test was designed to stress the high Angle of attack (AOA) control laws of the F-35."

For those who don't know, Angle of attack is where the nose of an aircraft is pointed, versus where the aircraft is actually going.

If an aircraft's nose is pointed ^ that way, but the aircraft itself is moving this way > then that is 90 degrees AOA.

High AOA maneuverability is a form of super maneuverability, so saying an F-35 can't maneuver because it looses energy in high AOA, is literally saying "it's not maneuverable because it executed a violent maneuver", that makes no sense.

Any aircraft that executes a high AOA maneuver like a Cobra experiences a sudden loss of energy. Energy that can be used for follow up maneuvers. High AOA maneuverability is basically exchanging all your energy for rapid nose reposition.

If you can kill the target with that, then it was worth it, but the danger is if he escapes.

The test concluded that in a high AOA environment the F-35A's wing area was insufficient and it's engine power not enough to keep it in a high energy state when executing high AOA.

There are a few things we can get out of this statement.

1. The statement does say that the F-35A fought best between 20-26 degrees AOA, which is similar to an F-16. The A model is designed to be 50% heavier than the F-16 with a 50% bigger wing area and 50% more thrust. In short the F-35A is basically an enlarged F-16. Not surprisingly, the enlarged F-16 fought best when it fought like an F-16, at low AOA. This means that pilot testimonies where an F-35 can turn and accelerate just as well as an F-16, when fighting like an F-16 (at low AOA) still holds true.

2. The F-35C's enlarged wing area will have different effects and may yield more positive results.

3. Being energy deficient against an F-16 is not new, most planes are actually energy deficient against the F-16, like the F/A-18, but that doesn't stop Hornet pilots from killing F-16s in a dogfight simulation. With the F/A-18s superior high AOA maneuverability they can point their nose at will at any target at the expense of energy. They loose the energy but gain the lock.

4. The F-35 can fight like an F-16 using low AOA but conserving energy while maneuvering. Or it can fight like an F/A-18 and use high AOA but loose energy in the process.

5. The F-35 is NOT energy deficient against the F-16 when it chooses to fight like an F-16 at low AOA. it only becomes energy deficient like an F/A-18 when it chooses to fight like an F/A-18 at high AOA.


Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 20:56
by spazsinbad
Here is the first page text which makes it easier to know what others speak about very well here - thanks a bunch - youse are the best.
F-3SA High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers
14 January 2015 UNK

Test Aircraft: AF-2, Test 715, Flight 5O5, Configuration 10-001B (Clean Wing), 0.1-v12.006 (R33.1)

OBJECTIVE
The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs. The evaluation focused on the overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment. This consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet MSL. The Flying Qualities criteria were that the aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected, or unpredictable aircraft responses. Qualitative observations were made regarding the high AoA capability, cues that the aircraft was entering a low energy state, as well as various human factors considerations.

TEST ARTICLES
AF-2 was flown with empty weapon bays and clean wings in R33.1.5 software. Of note, there were no CATM weapons and no mission systems available for this test. No FTAs were utilized to open or close weapon bay doors to simulate weapon launch. An on-axis HMD fixed reticle was used to help assist in evaluating capture and tracking tasks but no symbology filters were available. The target aircraft was an F-16D Block 40. It was equipped with a GE-100 engine and configured with no CATM weapons and two 370 gallon wing tanks. No restrictions were placed on the target other than the basic aircraft design limits associated with wing tanks (7.0 Nz acceleration until empty)...."

Source: https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/m ... MW7SwQ.png & https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-f ... 9a4e66f3eb

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 21:00
by Dragon029
For what it's worth (maybe somebody wants to entice him to comment further), the pilot that wrote this report was Lockheed's David Nelson.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 21:16
by cantaz
I wish they would specify helmet generation, given that the form factor changed over the generations. I wonder how much of a role a pilot's height plays.

I'm not sure the holding the F-35A to the F-15E's E-M is really a fair comparison. The F-15 is something of a monster and can give the F-22 a run for its money.

I'm not sure why the pilot wrote the phrase "limited F-16 target configuration", it sounds like a rebuke of the F-35A compared to a relatively lightly-loaded F-16, even if it was a two-seater. A more representative E-M comparison would involve two additional MAWS-equipped pylons, an EO pod and an ECM pod.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 21:43
by spazsinbad
'cantaz' can you point to the page (1 to 5) where the pilot "... wrote the phrase "limited F-16 target configuration"..."
"...The target aircraft was an F-16D Block 40. It was equipped with a GE-100 engine and configured with no CATM weapons and two 370 gallon wing tanks. No restrictions were placed on the target other than the basic aircraft design limits associated with wing tanks (7.0 Nz acceleration until empty)...." PAGE 1

IF you read about the Helmet it is clear it is NOT the latest and greatest - even if it is - it is restricted heaps.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 21:55
by citanon
Holy reading comprehension fail batman. David Axe did not understand what that report said.

Report notes EM deficit vs F15. Well, yeah.

Consequently, F35 flying at high AoA losing energy to f16 flying to optimize maneuvering advantage. No s*** Sherlock.

F35 really likes to fight at 20 deg AoA but control laws were all weird and screwed up there. This, of course, is why testing is done. For goodness sake even modern Toyotas need their control laws tweaked in testing.

So, more vanilla flight testing routine reinterpreted into salacious program doom gawkery by the overeager and under informed. Nothing new except more double facepalm reporter fail.

BTW, long time reader of the forum, first time poster. Very interesting discussions going on here. It's been hugely educational for me.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 21:57
by spazsinbad
Pentagon says damning report of F-35 troubles ‘doesn’t tell the entire story’
01 Jul 2015 Christian Davenport

Nothing new that is not already in rebuttal on previous pages.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec ... ire-story/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 21:57
by XanderCrews
Dragon029 wrote:For what it's worth (maybe somebody wants to entice him to comment further), the pilot that wrote this report was Lockheed's David Nelson.


No no this can't be. All LM test pilots are paid to lie about how awesome it is. The internet told me so.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 21:59
by cantaz
Page 2, last sentence of the Energy Maneuverability paragraph.

I know AF-02 doesn't have the mission systems to support full HMDS functionality, my issue is whether the adverse helmet-canopy interaction is based on a helmet generation on its way out, or if it's the Gen III's form factor that's the issue. I'd expect Gen I to be the problem, given its "horns".

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 22:10
by spazsinbad
OK 'cantaz' I see the 'limited F-16' quote is on page 2 - doh. :doh:
"...Energy Maneuverability [page 2]
Overall, the most noticeable characteristic of the F-35A in a visual engagement was its lack of energy maneuverability. The test pilot had 2,000 hours of flight time in the F-15E, experience in F-16 Blks 30/40/42/SO, exposure to flying the F-18F in high AoA, and has fought dissimilar BFM engagements with each in addition to F-15C. The EM of the F-35A is substantially inferior to the F-15E with PW-229s due to a smaller wing, similar weight, and ≈15,000 lbs less In afterburner thrust. So, In general, the high AoA capabilities of the jet could not be used in an effective way without significantly reducing follow-on maneuvering potential. Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement...."

Source: https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/m ... LZNn3w.png & https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-f ... 9a4e66f3eb

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 22:12
by vilters
Hey, take off your blindfolds:

What is software gonna do about the trust to drag ratio?
What is software gonna do to the lift/weight ratio?

What is software gonna do about 18.000 pounds of fuel?

Certainly for the F-35 against an F-16 , that is 18.000 against 7.000 pounds of fuel.

You are houling the double fuel weight around, OK?

No software or helmet upgrade will ever change that.

Wanna tell us who won a WVR one V one? Tell us the fuel weights.

Realy?
If you need a software or helmet upgrade to win a one V one, that is the poorest excuse I ever heard on this forum.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 22:23
by spazsinbad
Calm down already... The problem is 'deigned in' so it can be 'deigned out'... :mrgreen: [CLUE: 'deign': "do something that one considers to be beneath one's dignity." AND WVR is beneath the designed role of the BVR F-35 - HOKAY?]
JPO: F-35 deigned for long-range kills, not dogfighting
02 Jul 2015 James Drew

Usual stuff repeated many times now on this thread is repeated then there is this....

"...Maj Gen Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the US F-35 integration office, says it is too soon to “draw any final conclusions on the manoeuvrability of the aircraft”.

“Both operational and developmental test continues for the F-35,” he says. “The F-35 is designed to be comparable to current tactical fighters in terms of manoeuvrability, but the design is optimised for stealth. This will allow it to operate in threat environments where the F-16 could not survive.”

DellaVedova notes that the AF-2 test aircraft involved is used specifically for flight science testing and is not equipped with the mission systems, software, weapons, sensors or stealth coating of an operational F-35.

“The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual ‘dogfighting’ situations,” he says...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ng-414232/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 22:31
by maus92
cantaz wrote:I wish they would specify helmet generation, given that the form factor changed over the generations. I wonder how much of a role a pilot's height plays.


The Navy does some very specific anthropometric measurements to help determine what pipeline a pilot candidate might enter. It's not always disqualifying, but people with long torsos (which translates into tall seated height) might find themselves in helicopters or patrol/transport planes. Future F-35 pilots might have to be a bit shorter than others.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 22:38
by basher54321
cantaz wrote:
I'm not sure why the pilot wrote the phrase "limited F-16 target configuration", it sounds like a rebuke of the F-35A compared to a relatively lightly-loaded F-16, even if it was a two-seater. A more representative E-M comparison would involve two additional MAWS-equipped pylons, an EO pod and an ECM pod.


Would say he was right - the drag is significant and full 370s weigh in ~6000 lbs - and likely the reason the tanks and pylons can be jettisoned.

An EO / ECM / and 3+ 7 + pylons come in about a 3rd of that weight for less drag - although you could guess that using the tanks is the closest practical loadout to what you mentioned - e.g would rather over G tanks than pods. Or they just used a chase jet like always and weren't bothered.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 22:42
by spazsinbad
maus92 wrote:
cantaz wrote:I wish they would specify helmet generation, given that the form factor changed over the generations. I wonder how much of a role a pilot's height plays.


The Navy does some very specific anthropometric measurements to help determine what pipeline a pilot candidate might enter. It's not always disqualifying, but people with long torsos (which translates into tall seated height) might find themselves in helicopters or patrol/transport planes. Future F-35 pilots might have to be a bit shorter than others.

The F-35 cockpit and ejection seat (along with flight gear) have been designed to take a very wide range of M/F pilot heights and weights AFAIK more than has been the standard - deliberately. References can be supplied if required. One example however the URL no longer working.... http://www.lockheedmartinuk.co.uk/data/ ... Arev16.pdf

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 22:47
by blindpilot
vilters wrote:Hey, take off your blindfolds:

What is software gonna do about the trust to drag ratio?
...
Realy?
If you need a software or helmet upgrade to win a one V one, that is the poorest excuse I ever heard on this forum.


I think you are misreading the comments. In the FBW world and that includes the F-16, all control surface response is 100% software, to the limits of the air frame. So designers are required to do trade offs. If I instantly kick the a$$ full elevator at Mach 1.6 I could ... hmmm exceed air frame parameters ... and lose my wings. Great AoA onset rate, but maybe not so good for the air frame. If I limit AoA in a given condition to X degrees, I can maintain a Y turn rate until I run out of gas. But that may not be a good limit. I might need an option for a quick pull of just a few more deg/s. Also if I am going into an energy deficit, it might be nice if I had transition cues, etc. etc.

Whatever the weight, lift, wing area or drag, altitude or speed, of a given airframe, all of the control surface parameters are software set within airframe limits. Change the software and the F-16 can do 90 degrees AoA pretty quick, right before it spins into departure, and right before something breaks. But you can't say the "F-16 airframe" can't do 90 degrees AoA. Software is what manages that. This test and others like it are exploring those parameters for this airframe, just like was done for the F-16 before it. Test Pilot comments are for feedback with the assigned test objectives, presumeably to allow adjustment for the best mix and balance. (data for tuning and tweaking)

Again MHO based on previous similar experience,
BP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 22:48
by basher54321
vilters wrote:Hey, take off your blindfolds:

What is software gonna do about the trust to drag ratio?
What is software gonna do to the lift/weight ratio?

What is software gonna do about 18.000 pounds of fuel?

Certainly for the F-35 against an F-16 , that is 18.000 against 7.000 pounds of fuel.

You are houling the double fuel weight around, OK?

No software or helmet upgrade will ever change that.

Wanna tell us who won a WVR one V one? Tell us the fuel weights.

Realy?
If you need a software or helmet upgrade to win a one V one, that is the poorest excuse I ever heard on this forum.



The test pilot makes recommendations for changes that appear to be software based - because that is what moves all the control surfaces to get the best performance at the end of the day - part of the testing process you would think.

JW has mentioned he thought the F-16 turn performance could be improved this way with better scheduling over the original software. Not saying its going to turn into an F-22 at the next test but you expect they can improve it over further testing.

If the fuel weight was an issue for that 1v1 guns that happens in combat so much I guess you could dump the fuel - just don't forget you left it on :D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 22:58
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Hey, take off your blindfolds:

What is software gonna do about the trust to drag ratio?
What is software gonna do to the lift/weight ratio?

What is software gonna do about 18.000 pounds of fuel?

Certainly for the F-35 against an F-16 , that is 18.000 against 7.000 pounds of fuel.

You are houling the double fuel weight around, OK?

No software or helmet upgrade will ever change that.

Wanna tell us who won a WVR one V one? Tell us the fuel weights.

Realy?
If you need a software or helmet upgrade to win a one V one, that is the poorest excuse I ever heard on this forum.


Not even what we are talking about thanks for trying though

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 23:08
by spazsinbad
over the page 'basher54321' said: "...If the fuel weight was an issue for that 1v1 guns that happens in combat so much I guess you could dump the fuel - just don't forget you left it on :D "

I do not think AFAIK the F-35A is able to dump fuel - unlike the B/C where this is a NavAv requirement (to be able to land ASAP if a problem after catapult/STO/SkiJump - or to return to the flat deck with extra fuel for whatever reason that is above max. landing weight so as to quickly get down to that weight).

The F-35B/C can dial in the weight of fuel to dump down to and then the dump stops.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 23:14
by SpudmanWP
All F-35's can dump fuel

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 23:15
by MD
blindpilot wrote:I think you are misreading the comments. In the FBW world and that includes the F-16, all control surface response is 100% software, to the limits of the air frame. So designers are required to do trade offs. If I instantly kick the a$$ full elevator at Mach 1.6 I could ... hmmm exceed air frame parameters ... and lose my wings.


Could do that in the hydraulics world too; with the F-15A crash at Galena in June 1985 coming to mind.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 23:25
by citanon
cantaz wrote:I'm not sure why the pilot wrote the phrase "limited F-16 target configuration", it sounds like a rebuke of the F-35A compared to a relatively lightly-loaded F-16, even if it was a two-seater. A more representative E-M comparison would involve two additional MAWS-equipped pylons, an EO pod and an ECM pod.


The pilot is referring to the earlier sentence in the" test articles" regarding the setup which said:

"No limits were placed on target other than basic aircraft design limits ...with wing tanks (7.0 Nz acceleration until empty).”

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 23:44
by spazsinbad
'SWP' said: "All F-35's can dump fuel" OK thanks. I wuz confuzed. All same makes sense - testing of B/C fuel dump was only fixed recently (with no mention of A - so A fuel dump must have been fixed years back).

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2015, 23:56
by SpudmanWP
The last OT&E doc to mention the dump valve on the F-35A was FY2011

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... f35jsf.pdf

But it does not appear in subsequent reports, only the F-35B/C

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... f35jsf.pdf
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... f35jsf.pdf
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... f35jsf.pdf

The port can be seen on every variant as a small diamond shaped object between stations 2 & 3 under the left wing (rear).

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 00:00
by spazsinbad
Yep I could have said similar - I looked at DOTE reports backwards to see last mention of A dump in 2011. Thanks. It does make sense to have fuel dump on all F-35 aircraft variants.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 00:23
by lookieloo
gabriele wrote:Now Axe has finally decided to put the document online: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-f ... 9a4e66f3eb
Well, that wasn't so bad (or unexpected for that matter). David Axe is simply a retarded child who found a Daisy Pal and thought he had a .30/30... though I suppose some of the F-35's more-enthusiastic supporters may be left looking a little silly.

Of course, this was only a test; the main purpose of which was to make sure nothing crazy happened with the controls in the unpredictable regime of a WVR dogfight. So far so good on that front.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 00:24
by mrbsct
How much fuel did the F16 have? How much did the F35 have? These factors make a HUGE difference.

Thrust Weight Ratio

F16 with external fuel tanks loaded T/W: 0.83
F16 with 2 external fuel tanks not loaded T/W:1.01
F16 no drop tanks T/W: 1.07
F35A fully loaded T/W:0.87
F35A: half fuel T/W: 1.06

F16 and F35A Thrust Weight ratio with same amount of fuel and weapons(3.505 Tonnes of Fuel & Weapons)
-F35A-1.16
-F16-1.055

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 00:51
by quicksilver
zero-one wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Read my lips, AF-02 was limited to 7g while the F-16 can do 9g.

This will not be the case in a combat representative Block 3F F-35A .


I thought Doc Nelson said that he was given "No limits"?

Thats what he said on the April eddition


"No limits" relative to normal test card/test point set-ups.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 00:53
by cantaz
basher54321 wrote:Would say he was right - the drag is significant and full 370s weigh in ~6000 lbs - and likely the reason the tanks and pylons can be jettisoned.

An EO / ECM / and 3+ 7 + pylons come in about a 3rd of that weight for less drag - although you could guess that using the tanks is the closest practical loadout to what you mentioned - e.g would rather over G tanks than pods. Or they just used a chase jet like always and weren't bothered.


I was actually suggesting that EO / ECM plus 3, 7 plus the 2 tanks would make for a better comparison. A F-16 with 2 tanks runs into the same problem as a clean F-16, neither is fully representative of how the F-16 is loaded operationally, and therefore comparing a F-35 to those configs doesn't produce anything meaningful.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 00:59
by zerion

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 01:07
by basher54321
cantaz wrote:
I was actually suggesting that EO / ECM plus 3, 7 plus the 2 tanks would make for a better comparison. A F-16 with 2 tanks runs into the same problem as a clean F-16, neither is fully representative of how the F-16 is loaded operationally, and therefore comparing a F-35 to those configs doesn't produce anything meaningful.


If the comparison was non BFM related then yes keep the tanks - but a loadout you would expect in a BFM situation would be pods minus tanks which is why I suggested the tanks could be a substitute for the pods. .

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 01:18
by weasel1962
Don't think the F-35A needs to dump fuel. Makes sense just to hit the afterburners and the fuel consumption will take care of the fuel situation. The pilots are starting to understand that the F-35 is a different beast from legacy fighters. Maneuvers and tactics will be different from legacy fighters. That's much the same way as the P-47s were to the P-51s. Same issues when the jet age hit.

I like the articles like David Axe. It contributes to the complacency of opforce pilots when they finally meet the F-35s.

Anyways, rebuttal from JPO on flightglobal. Makes sense when the standard internal load-out is intended to be 2 Amraams with 2-8 bombs.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ng-414232/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 01:29
by cantaz
basher54321 wrote:If the comparison was non BFM related then yes keep the tanks - but a loadout you would expect in a BFM situation would be pods minus tanks which is why I suggested the tanks could be a substitute for the pods. .


The tanks should stay on for a meaningful comparison. It's not about what the F-16 can nominally do, it's about what the F-16 would have to force itself to do to mirror as close as possible the F-35's operational requirements.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 01:31
by spazsinbad
The BS article on AvWeak had me LOL with this quote:
"...Lockheed Martin notes that AF-2 is an early development aircraft without stealth coatings, although those are not relevant in within-visual-range (WVR) combat and their absence would make the airplane lighter...."

To my quick reading it looks as though the BS has quoted MOST of the report so I might just OCR and correct same sometime.

ADDITION: The F-35 variants should have this canard added (or at least painted on the side in DayGlo HiViz 'heavy' paint) from the BS AvWeak artickle mentioned earlier - last paragraph:
"...But as one of Aviation Week’s sources says, reliance on deciding the fight beyond visual range may not always be possible in the early stages of a conflict (power projection, show-of-force) or where rules of engagement limit BVR [THE debilitatin' CANARD] shots. “My belief is that the tactics against the F-35 will be something which we are not used to saying: If you see one — get close.”

AND THIS WOULD BE AMF "Adios MuthaTrucker" :devil:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 01:48
by quicksilver
Although its been posted before, I'm linking to this again because its the most cogent discussion of the matter.

http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-1 ... e-garbage/

I also chuckle at some who wanna set everyone's hair on fire over "...40 year old jet beats trillion dollar fighter...".

Anyone ever wonder why Top Gun was flying A-4s as aggressors for so long? Ever wonder why NSAWC is flying F-16s and legacy F-18s as aggressors? Anyone wonder why F-16s are still aggressors at Nellis? Think they ever beat anything but an F-35 on its first BFM ride? :roll:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 01:59
by spazsinbad
Did I read 'tree' something or other in the difficult to read .PNGs posted displaying the report? WotTisIt puhleez... ON page three there is this (tree is perhaps VERTICAL skizzers?):
"...High Angle of Attack Blended Region
The flying qualities in the blended region (20-26 degrees AOA) were not intuitive or favorable. This was especially frustrating because as the sortie progressed, it was apparent that the aircraft fought best at the lower end of this alpha whether turning or established in a tree/scissors; so the lateral/directional control was often unpredictable...."


ADDITION: OK thanks 'QS' Flat/Horizontal Skizzers it is. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 02:02
by quicksilver
Some would call it a 'flat' scissors, while others might call it a 'horizontal' scissors.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 02:05
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:Although its been posted before, I'm linking to this again because its the most cogent discussion of the matter.

http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-1 ... e-garbage/

I also chuckle at some who wanna set everyone's hair on fire over "...40 year old jet beats trillion dollar fighter...".

Anyone ever wonder why Top Gun was flying A-4s as aggressors for so long?


You mean, "cheap 1950s airplane beats Navy's state-of-the-art multibillion dollar fleet defense legend?"

Classified footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC976fuQm4E

Seriously classified. Don't watch that.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 02:11
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:
maus92 wrote:
cantaz wrote:I wish they would specify helmet generation, given that the form factor changed over the generations. I wonder how much of a role a pilot's height plays.


The Navy does some very specific anthropometric measurements to help determine what pipeline a pilot candidate might enter. It's not always disqualifying, but people with long torsos (which translates into tall seated height) might find themselves in helicopters or patrol/transport planes. Future F-35 pilots might have to be a bit shorter than others.

The F-35 cockpit and ejection seat (along with flight gear) have been designed to take a very wide range of M/F pilot heights and weights AFAIK more than has been the standard - deliberately. References can be supplied if required. One example however the URL no longer working.... http://www.lockheedmartinuk.co.uk/data/ ... Arev16.pdf


Looks like they forgot to factor in seated height / helmet size / canopy clearance in those calculations...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 02:12
by cantaz
spazsinbad wrote:The BS article on AvWeak had me LOL with this quote:
"...Lockheed Martin notes that AF-2 is an early development aircraft without stealth coatings, although those are not relevant in within-visual-range (WVR) combat and their absence would make the airplane lighter...."

To my quick reading it looks as though the BS has quoted MOST of the report so I might just OCR and correct same sometime.


Sure BS didn't forget that AF-2 is a flight sciences bird loaded down with instrumentation.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 02:22
by spazsinbad
'maus92' said: "Looks like they forgot to factor in seated height / helmet size / canopy clearance in those calculations."

Did not I read that a block hardware future update will be a wider canopy? Possibly for some reason I'll guess. BTW the seat moves up and down so that is a factor that takes care of the height. We still do not know which HMDS was being used and whether there is any size difference between HMDS II or HMDS III. No one seems to have come to grips with the vHUD yet. No one is going to sneak up into the six of an F-35 without that F-35 pilot knowing it and targeting it - so there is that.

So we can assume also 'maus92' that you know the dimensions of the mythical test pilot involved - someone guessed the name but that is just that - a guess - along with your guesses. RONG.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 02:25
by spazsinbad
'cantaz' said: "Sure BS didn't forget that AF-2 is a flight sciences bird loaded down with instrumentation."

That would be interesting to know the weight - I'll guess that different instrumentation will change also for test sorties? Probably a nebulous question along with 'weight of the paint'. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 03:47
by digitalmedia_james
Well Peirre Sprey must be a happy man today! After all, jazz is not a product that pays so every little bit helps. OK! Who wants to wager how long it takes for RT news to rush old Sprey in and slap a paycheck in his hand for another 'Damning' interview on the F-35 getting kicked by an old F-16?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 03:51
by cantaz
RT will have to beat CBC to the punch. :bang:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 04:06
by geogen
Why even give free advertising to ideologically-oriented and fairly biased media as was just given in the first place?

That said: a modern, next-gen-configured F-16 is yes, actually more advanced, more affordable and more capable (e.g., in terms of adaptability and flexible, tactical load-outs and in combat and ferry range) than a current (substantially delayed and still uncertain) block III F-35!

Please focus on the relevant debate points and don't add to the distractions some outside interests might want to introduce. Thanks.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 04:11
by geogen
Why even give free advertising to ideologically-oriented and fairly biased media as was just given in the first place?

That said: a modern, next-gen-configured F-16 is yes, actually more advanced, more affordable and more capable (e.g., in terms of agility and especially in adaptability to flexible, tactical load-outs, various sensors/avionics and in combat and ferry range) than at LEAST, the current (substantially delayed and still uncertain) block III F-35.

Please focus on the relevant debate points and don't add to the distractions some outside interests might want to introduce. Thanks.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 04:14
by spazsinbad
For 'maus92' some specs for da seat:
"MB Mk16 US16E EJECTION SEAT for F-35 SPECIFICATIONS

Crew boarding mass range nude 46.7 Kg (103 lbs) to 111.1 kg (245 lbs)

Crew boarding mass range dressed 57.1 Kg (126 lbs) to 132.4 kg (292 lbs)

Crew size range US Government multi-variate body sizes 1 through 8 [ whatever that means is here: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA420324 (PDF 7.7Mb) ]

Source: http://www.martin-baker.com/products/ej ... s/mk16/f35

How it Works: The F-35’s Martin-Baker Ejection Seat
17 Jun 2015 LM PR

"...Martin-Baker was selected in August 2000 for the F-35 because of its demonstrated ability to provide a fully integrated escape system that met the very latest in aircrew operational capability and safety standards, establishing operational safety and escape requirements, design, development and qualification, to ongoing support throughout the entire service life of the aircraft. The US16E’s prime structural elements comprise a twin catapult arrangement that is housed in a side-rail arrangement, and a 19.5-inch wide seat bucket that is based on the NASA T-38 design to ensure accommodation of the larger aircrew. The seat design is highly modularized and provides ease of seat removal with the canopy opened forward. The seat itself is lightweight, yet provides a 30 G-forces crash and egress capability...."

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/how-it- ... ction-seat

And one from the PIEman: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14524&p=182687&hilit=Battle#p182687
Bang Seat Battle
16 Sep 2010 Bill Sweetman

"...The JSF is also the first fighter designed to accommodate 95 percent of the potential US pilot population, with body weights from 103 to 245 pounds...."

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 04:14
by smsgtmac
geogen wrote:Why even give free advertising to ideologically-oriented and fairly biased media as was just given in the first place?

That said: a modern, next-gen-configured F-16 is yes, actually more advanced, more affordable and more capable (e.g., in terms of adaptability to flexible, tactical load-outs, various sensors/avionics and in combat and ferry range) than a current (substantially delayed and still uncertain) block III F-35!

Please focus on the relevant debate points and don't add to the distractions some outside interests might want to introduce. Thanks.


Here Here. Completely agree. Leave the leaping to incorrect conclusions to the Journolistas and the H8ters. :cheers:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 04:21
by smsgtmac
cantaz wrote:
basher54321 wrote:If the comparison was non BFM related then yes keep the tanks - but a loadout you would expect in a BFM situation would be pods minus tanks which is why I suggested the tanks could be a substitute for the pods. .


The tanks should stay on for a meaningful comparison. It's not about what the F-16 can nominally do, it's about what the F-16 would have to force itself to do to mirror as close as possible the F-35's operational requirements.


The tanks, given what we know (vs believe or suspect) about the tests could just as likely be there so the missions could be longer. Per the JPO response to Axe's drivel, this wasn't about what Axe asserts it was:
The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against

I challenge anyone to tell us the one about the two fighter pilots arguing over who was "the best visual reference to maneuver against".

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 04:35
by smsgtmac
spazsinbad wrote:The BS article on AvWeak had me LOL with this quote:
"...Lockheed Martin notes that AF-2 is an early development aircraft without stealth coatings, although those are not relevant in within-visual-range (WVR) combat and their absence would make the airplane lighter...."

To my quick reading it looks as though the BS has quoted MOST of the report so I might just OCR and correct same sometime.


Didn't read the article, but I will wager the 'orange wire' and test gear in AF-2 outweighs the differences between a non-LO and LO coated outer mold line. I will further wager that AF-2 as only the second production A model off the line is significantly heavier than the SDD baseline weight objective benchmark bird. How much initiative will LM feel to open up the control laws if they know the standard aircraft empty weight will be 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% (5%?) lighter than AF-2 in its current configuration? A journalist ought to ask the program that question. A good one would be honest and report the answer.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 04:59
by geogen
smsgtmac wrote:
geogen wrote:Why even give free advertising to ideologically-oriented and fairly biased media as was just given in the first place?

That said: a modern, next-gen-configured F-16 is yes, actually more advanced, more affordable and more capable (e.g., in terms of adaptability to flexible, tactical load-outs, various sensors/avionics and in combat and ferry range) than a current (substantially delayed and still uncertain) block III F-35!

Please focus on the relevant debate points and don't add to the distractions some outside interests might want to introduce. Thanks.


Here Here. Completely agree. Leave the leaping to incorrect conclusions to the Journolistas and the H8ters. :cheers:


Thanks for that reply! And consider me in agreement too, to keep the debate on the likely actual technical assessments of capabilities... and not based on political bias, financial interests, or ideological motive, etc! Cheers back.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 07:03
by lookieloo
smsgtmac wrote:Didn't read the article, but I will wager the 'orange wire' and test gear in AF-2 outweighs the differences between a non-LO and LO coated outer mold line. I will further wager that AF-2 as only the second production A model off the line is significantly heavier than the SDD baseline weight objective benchmark bird. How much initiative will LM feel to open up the control laws if they know the standard aircraft empty weight will be 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% (5%?) lighter than AF-2 in its current configuration? A journalist ought to ask the program that question. A good one would be honest and report the answer.
Okay... where to start. First off, for my part, I never really expected the F-35 to be a brilliant dogfighter and accepted that modern systems, combined with decent flight-performance would make the platform adequate in WVR engagements and dominant in BVR-to-WVR fights (just seeing the other guy first is a huge tactical advantage, even when you, for whatever reason, have to close the distance).


However, I did not expect things to go this (seemingly) badly.

At this point, one has to reiterate that the F-35, from the get-go, was not originally intended to be the USAF's (or anyone's) primary air-superiority asset. That was supposed to be the F-22's job. Years ago, the predicted relationship between F-22 and F-35 was a reflection how the F-15/F-16 relationship had developed over preceding years... both fighters were originally meant for A2A combat; but the F-16 had, by the 1990s, been almost exclusively relegated to moving mud in shooting-conflicts.

The JSF's planned role reflected this reality.

Unfortunately, a certain former USAF officer who'd spent his career in Minuteman holes had a war to pay for, and thought that one pointy-nosed jet was as good as another. Ergo, the USAF was forced to venture all it's F-22 hopes (and bombast) on an aircraft that doesn't match-up to likely opponents in the same way.

Perhaps the USAF should have curbed expectations a bit.

I'm not ready to hit panic-button for revived F-22 production just yet though. After all, we're talking about one pilot in one pre-production test-mule. There's still room for adjustments/improvements in the current airframe; and future holds some promise for better engines and weapons as the design continues to mature; but the JSF still has fundamental limitations on its performance.

This is nothing new.

When I was a child, I read about the Eagle Squadron's transition from Spitfires to Jugs early in WWII. Needless to say, they weren't happy with their big new planes, which utterly lacked the Spitfire's premiere maneuverability; and if someone totally ignorant of WWII's outcome read the reviews by Germans who tested captured P-47s, they could be forgiven for assuming that the allies would have lost the airwar over Europe. (Even the much-vaunted P-51 didn't evade German scorn in this regard.)

But that's just not how things worked out in real combat.

The fact is, American pilots have usually been at an "EM" disadvantage in most of the air-wars we've fought... and still managed. Like all the P-40, P-39, P-38, P-47, P-51, F4F, F6F, F-80, F-84, F-86, and F-4 pilots that have gone before, the F-35 pilots will have to figure out how best to take advantage of what their platform has to offer, and learn to work around its weaknesses.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 08:36
by spazsinbad
First few NELSON sentences are informative.... AND some more from elsewhere (below the video) which is a long and informative article.
F-35 Flight Test Intentional Departure
Published on May 13, 2013 LockheedMartinVideos

“F-35 Test Pilot Dave Nelson talks about intentional departure and recovering from stalls during F-35A high angle of attack testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Flight Test Engineer Lea Haubelt explains how the tests help define the F-35 flight control software.”


F-35 Lightning II Flight Testing At Edwards AFB
17 May 2013 Eric Hehs

"...“The airplane does quite well at high AOA,” Nelson added, “and the tests have been proceeding smoothly. We went from twenty degrees angle of attack to fifty degrees in only four days of testing.” Nelson and other pilots have also evaluated flying qualities at minus ten degrees AOA, which is the maximum design limit for negative AOA for the airplane. High AOA testing for 2013 will involve a variety of loadings mounted externally....

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=117

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 09:50
by spazsinbad
Military: Don't Worry If F-35, Most Expensive Fighter Jet Ever, Can't Dogfight Well
01 Jul 2015 LEE FERRAN

"...In an email to reporters, Joe DellaVedova, a spokesperson for the F-35 office, attempted to provide context in defense of the fighter jets. First, DellaVedova wrote, the F-35 in the demonstration was only designed for “flight sciences” and was “not equipped with a number of items” that the jets currently coming off the production line have. For instance, it didn’t have the sensors that “allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area.”

He said that the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 didn’t have the stealth coating that regular F-35s have, making them “virtually invisible to radar,” and the test jet wasn’t equipped with “the weapons or software that allow the F-35 to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”...

...DellaVedova said in a follow-up email to ABC News that the test pilot’s report is “the beginning of what engineers and software designers may need to address in the future.”

“As the F-35 is still in the midst of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, much work is on-going to improve the capabilities and deliver them to the warfighter,” DellaVedova said. “The F-35 of today is not what the F-35 will be in the coming years.”...

...ABC News requested additional context about the F-35’s dogfighting capabilities in the form of the For Official Use Only (FOUO) report on which the War Is Boring report was based. DellaVedova declined...."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/military-dont- ... d=32152912

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 10:47
by popcorn
How likely is it that they find out who provided Axe the report and what sanctions would apply?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 11:30
by uclass
popcorn wrote:How likely is it that they find out who provided Axe the report and what sanctions would apply?

Completely impossible because his unnamed source is fictional.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 11:39
by thepointblank
popcorn wrote:How likely is it that they find out who provided Axe the report and what sanctions would apply?

Pretty damned likely. Person will probably loose their job and be blacklisted from any government work as the lightest punishment. Significant jail time is the maximum. If they really want to go nuts, they could charge him/her with treason...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 13:34
by bring_it_on
Does AF-2 even have the DAS sensors installed? From what I can recall the first fully equipped sensors suite flew on BF4 or 5...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 13:50
by borg
spazsinbad wrote:First few NELSON sentences are informative.... AND some more from elsewhere (below the video) which is a long and informative article.
F-35 Flight Test Intentional Departure
Published on May 13, 2013 LockheedMartinVideos

“F-35 Test Pilot Dave Nelson talks about intentional departure and recovering from stalls during F-35A high angle of attack testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Flight Test Engineer Lea Haubelt explains how the tests help define the F-35 flight control software.”


F-35 Lightning II Flight Testing At Edwards AFB
17 May 2013 Eric Hehs

"...“The airplane does quite well at high AOA,” Nelson added, “and the tests have been proceeding smoothly. We went from twenty degrees angle of attack to fifty degrees in only four days of testing.” Nelson and other pilots have also evaluated flying qualities at minus ten degrees AOA, which is the maximum design limit for negative AOA for the airplane. High AOA testing for 2013 will involve a variety of loadings mounted externally....

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=117


That video looks awsome!
My eyes are not what they used to be..
Was it the F-35 With the break recovery shute on all those Clips?


Are there vids of F-35 doing this without that the recovery shute?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 16:49
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
Thanks for that reply! And consider me in agreement too, to keep the debate on the likely actual technical assessments of capabilities... and not based on political bias, financial interests, or ideological motive, etc! .


Sweet Irony :roll:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 16:53
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:

However, I did not expect things to go this (seemingly) badly.

At this point, one has to reiterate that the F-35, from the get-go, was not originally intended to be the USAF's (or anyone's) primary air-superiority asset. That was supposed to be the F-22's job. Years ago, the predicted relationship between F-22 and F-35 was a reflection how the F-15/F-16 relationship had developed over preceding years... both fighters were originally meant for A2A combat; but the F-16 had, by the 1990s, been almost exclusively relegated to moving mud in shooting-conflicts.

The JSF's planned role reflected this reality.

Unfortunately, a certain former USAF officer who'd spent his career in Minuteman holes had a war to pay for, and thought that one pointy-nosed jet was as good as another. Ergo, the USAF was forced to venture all it's F-22 hopes (and bombast) on an aircraft that doesn't match-up to likely opponents in the same way.

Perhaps the USAF should have curbed expectations a bit.

I'm not ready to hit panic-button for revived F-22 production just yet though. After all, we're talking about one pilot in one pre-production test-mule. There's still room for adjustments/improvements in the current airframe; and future holds some promise for better engines and weapons as the design continues to mature; but the JSF still has fundamental limitations on its performance.

This is nothing new.

When I was a child, I read about the Eagle Squadron's transition from Spitfires to Jugs early in WWII. Needless to say, they weren't happy with their big new planes, which utterly lacked the Spitfire's premiere maneuverability; and if someone totally ignorant of WWII's outcome read the reviews by Germans who tested captured P-47s, they could be forgiven for assuming that the allies would have lost the airwar over Europe. (Even the much-vaunted P-51 didn't evade German scorn in this regard.)

But that's just not how things worked out in real combat.

The fact is, American pilots have usually been at an "EM" disadvantage in most of the air-wars we've fought... and still managed. Like all the P-40, P-39, P-38, P-47, P-51, F4F, F6F, F-80, F-84, F-86, and F-4 pilots that have gone before, the F-35 pilots will have to figure out how best to take advantage of what their platform has to offer, and learn to work around its weaknesses.


I expect F-35 to be about equivalent to a F-16, in some areas better, in some areas not quite as better.

This whole little BFM thing has been misconstrued. Like finding out that a championship boxer was beat up by a teen girl. LOL he sucks!! LOL Then we find out he was handcuffed, drunk, had been pepper sprayed, and the whole point was to see if he could escape from the handcuffs.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 17:48
by uclass
This seems to suggest the aircraft in January was still under flight restrictions:

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... Report.pdf

As a result of the engine failure that occurred in an F-35A in
late June, the program imposed aircraft operating limitations
(AOL) on all variants of F-35 aircraft at the flight test centers
and operational/training bases. These AOLs were:
- Maximum speed of 1.6 Mach (0.9 Mach for production
aircraft at operational/training bases),
- Maximum g-load of 3.2 g for test aircraft and 3.0 for
production aircraft,
- Maneuvers limited to half-stick roll rate and 18 degrees
angle of attack
- No rudder input, unless required for safe flight (production
aircraft restriction only)
- Note: In some circumstances during flight test (but not in
operational/training aircraft), exceedances were permitted
and testing continued, controlled by the flight test team
monitoring the aircraft, on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis
(i.e., individual aircraft are cleared for specific test points).

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 19:30
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 19:33
by zenith
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... fight.html

Pentagon Defends F-35 After Report Says it Can't Dogfight

The Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office is defending its new stealth aircraft in response to a recent news report citing a test pilot's analysis claiming the aircraft proved to be inferior to an F-16 in "dogfighting" test scenarios.
The test pilot assessment, first reported by the "War is Boring" blog, says the F-35A could not out-maneuver an F-16 or avoid being shot in mock dogfight scenarios during testing in January.
Military.com received a copy of the Jan. 14 report, titled "F-35A High Angle of Attack Operational Maneuvers," which says the aircraft lacked the "energy maneuverability" to succeed in air-to-air test dogfighting scenarios against the older aircraft.
"Overall, the most noticeable characteristic of the F-35A in a visual engagement was its lack of energy maneuverability," the report states. "Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement."
The test pilot's report also says the "energy maneuverability" of the F-35A is inferior to an F-15E with a Pratt & Whitney 229 engine due to a "smaller wing, similar weight and 15,000 pounds less in afterburner thrust."
"So, in general, the high AoA [Angle of Attack] capabilities of the jet could not be used in an effective way without significantly reducing follow-on maneuvering potential," the report says.
The test pilot's assessment also claimed that the F-35 helmet was too large for the pilot to effectively see behind the aircraft.
"There were multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible [not blocked by the seat] but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him," the report says.
The Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office, however, while praising and welcoming the test pilot assessments, says the "War is Boring" story leaves out key factors and critical context to the issue.
"The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters," a JPO office written statement said.
In particular, the JPO statement explained that the AF-2 test aircraft did not have the mission systems software designed to utilize the aircraft's next-generation sensors.
In short, the F-35 is engineered with a suite of next-generation sensors designed to help the aircraft recognize, detect and destroy enemy targets at longer distances -- long before it can be identified by an enemy aircraft.
"While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual 'dogfighting' situations," the JPO said.
The F-35 office also said the AF-2 test aircraft was not equipped with the F-35's special stealth coating designed to make the aircraft invisible to enemy radar.
In addition, the JPO statement said the AF-2 "is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target."
Finally, the F-35 office says simulated combat scenarios have shown that four F-35s have won encounters when pitted against a four-ship of F-16s.
"The F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology," the statement said.
The F-35 is engineered to accomplish what's referred to as "sensor fusion," namely the technological ability to fuse relevant information from a variety of sources into one common operating picture for the pilot to view -- such as digital maps, radar information and sensor information all combined into a single set of screens, Pentagon officials explained.
The idea is to enable F-35 pilots to see and destroy enemies in the air well in advance of a potential dogfight scenario. This can be explained in terms of a well-known Air Force strategic concept referred to as the "OODA Loop," for observe, orient, decide and act. The concept is to complete this process quickly and make fast decisions while in an air-to-air dogfight -- in order to get inside the enemy's decision cycle, properly anticipate, and destroy an enemy before they can destroy you.
The F-35 is designed with long-range sensors and data fusion technologies such that, as a fifth-generation aircraft, it can complete the OODA Loop much more quickly than potential adversaries, F-35 advocates and JPO program officials claim.
For instance, the F-35's Electro-Optical Target System, or EOTS, is an infra-red sensor able to assist pilots with air and ground targeting at increased standoff ranges while also performing laser designation, laser range-finding and other tasks.
In addition, the plane's Distributed Aperture System, or DAS, is a series of six electro-optical sensors also able to give information to the pilot. The DAS includes precision tracking, fire control capabilities and the ability to warn the pilot of an approaching threat or missile.
The F-35 is also engineered with an Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar, which is able to track a host of electromagnetic signals, including returns from Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR. This paints a picture of the contours of the ground or surrounding terrain and, along with Ground Moving Target Indicator, or GMTI, locates something on the move on the ground and airborne objects or threats.
The F-35 software, which shows images on display screens in the cockpit as well as on a pilot's helmet-mounted-display, is able to merge results from various radar capabilities onto a single screen for the pilot.
However, despite the F-35's technologies and next-generation sensors, the JPO statements did not seem to necessarily contradict the central finding of the test pilot's assessment that, in terms of pure dogfighting maneuverability as its own variable, the F-35 did not perform as well as an F-16.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 21:34
by zero-one
Am I correct in saying that AF-2 is only At an energy disadvantage against the F-16 when it is at high angles of attack, but when flown at low angles of attack (20-26 deg AOA) it should not be.

The statement does say that the F-35A fought best between 20-26 degrees AOA, which is similar to an F-16. The A model is designed to be 50% heavier than the F-16 with a 50% bigger wing area and 50% more thrust. In short the F-35A is basically an enlarged F-16.

Not surprisingly, the enlarged F-16 fought best when it fought like an F-16, at low AOA. This means that pilot testimonies where an F-35 can turn and accelerate just as well as an F-16, when fighting like an F-16 (at low AOA) still holds true.

Can't wait for them to do this test on the C model

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 22:02
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:Am I correct in saying that AF-2 is only At an energy disadvantage against the F-16 when it is at high angles of attack, but when flown at low angles of attack (20-26 deg AOA) it should not be.


There is no information in the report on this.

zero-one wrote:The A model is designed to be 50% heavier than the F-16 with a 50% bigger wing area and 50% more thrust. In short the F-35A is basically an enlarged F-16.


I don't think that will give much clue regarding actual performance - EM charts are what you need.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 22:21
by spazsinbad
Another commentary on the latest 'dogfight kerfuffle': I'll leave out all the bits we know already and head for the USAF comments - mostly at end of this article
F-16 Vs. F-35 In A Dogfight: JPO, Air Force Weigh In On Who’s Best
02 Jul 2015 Colin Clark

"WASHINGTON: Do dogfights matter in the age of tactical stealth? If an F-16 can outmaneuver an F-35 in a dogfight, does it matter?...

...Does it matter? Well, of course it matters if the F-35 pilot is in a dogfight and loses. But if you talk with Air Force and Marine pilots who’ve flown the Harrier, the F-18 and the F-16, every one of them I’ve talked with says the F-35 is a superior aircraft. They’ve said it on the USS Wasp. They’ve said it on the USS Enterprise [NIMITZ] and they’ve said it in the halls of the Pentagon and at Fort Worth, where the F-35 and the F-16 are made....

...Few senior officials or pilots have spoken on the record about the F-35 in terms of what it can actually do in combat, though at least a half-dozen pilots have said publicly they would not trade their F-35s for an F-18, Harrier or an F-16. In the only interview the Air Force has done about the F-35’s capabilities and the first 10 days of a full-scale war, retired Gen. Mike Hostage of Air Combat Command, told me this: “In the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen [aircraft] in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical.”

At the same time, Hostage made it clear that the F-35 is not the plane to send in for hot dogfights. It is, instead, the first US aircraft built specifically for taking out advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) such as the Russian S-300 and S-400. The plane that would lead the way to take out enemy fighters in close-up battles would be the F-22.

“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth,” Hotage told me, “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets.” In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war.

The F-35’s radar cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. For those who wonder about the worth of the opinion of a general sitting behind a desk, bear in mind that Hostage flew the F-22, as well as most models of the F-15 and the F-16.

I spoke to another pilot who has closely watched the F-35s development and has extensive combat experience, Dave Deptula, who now heads the Air Force Associations’s Mitchell Institute. He’s also a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors. Deptula flew the F-15 and twice led joint task forces, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

His bottom line about what the test pilot said: It’s “interesting, but not relevant to the issue of campaign level utility of the other very significant advantages the F-35 possesses in the areas of low observability, sensor capability, and information integration that provide the F-35 an enormous advantage relative to legacy aircraft. If one can target and kill your adversaries prior to the merge, what they can do at the merge really doesn’t matter now, does it?”

He believes “the anti-F-35 crowd are so focused on how we fought in the last century with old equipment that they can’t conceive of, or understand the information edge advantage aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 provide.”

He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”

Deptula says that one F-35 “can create effects that require dozens of legacy aircraft, and in some cases dozens of legacy aircraft simply cannot accomplish with one or two ‘F’-22s or ‘F’-35s can accomplish.” Dogfighting isn’t the sine qua non of air combat, he argues. Killing the enemy before he knows you’re there is. “Bottom line—it’s about the information, stupid.” ... [Oh Deptula... :mrgreen: ]

...The official Air Force comment on the story from Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, head of the Air Force’s F-35 Integration Office simply says: “It is too soon to draw any final conclusions on the maneuverability of the aircraft. The F-35 is designed to be comparable to current tactical fighters in terms of maneuverability, but the design is optimized for stealth. This will allow it to operate in threat environments where the F-16 could not survive.” Hostage said virtually the same thing about the F-16 and the F-35 in our interview last year. The reasonable conclusion of all this: the F-35 is not a top dogfighting aircraft because it wasn’t designed to be one. And it wasn’t designed to be one because it is better to kill the enemy from a distance before the enemy can target you."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16 ... whos-best/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 22:25
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:For 'maus92' some specs for da seat:
"MB Mk16 US16E EJECTION SEAT for F-35 SPECIFICATIONS

Crew boarding mass range nude 46.7 Kg (103 lbs) to 111.1 kg (245 lbs)

Crew boarding mass range dressed 57.1 Kg (126 lbs) to 132.4 kg (292 lbs)

Crew size range US Government multi-variate body sizes 1 through 8 [ whatever that means is here: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA420324 (PDF 7.7Mb) ]

Source: http://www.martin-baker.com/products/ej ... s/mk16/f35

How it Works: The F-35’s Martin-Baker Ejection Seat
17 Jun 2015 LM PR

"...Martin-Baker was selected in August 2000 for the F-35 because of its demonstrated ability to provide a fully integrated escape system that met the very latest in aircrew operational capability and safety standards, establishing operational safety and escape requirements, design, development and qualification, to ongoing support throughout the entire service life of the aircraft. The US16E’s prime structural elements comprise a twin catapult arrangement that is housed in a side-rail arrangement, and a 19.5-inch wide seat bucket that is based on the NASA T-38 design to ensure accommodation of the larger aircrew. The seat design is highly modularized and provides ease of seat removal with the canopy opened forward. The seat itself is lightweight, yet provides a 30 G-forces crash and egress capability...."

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/how-it- ... ction-seat

And one from the PIEman: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14524&p=182687&hilit=Battle#p182687
Bang Seat Battle
16 Sep 2010 Bill Sweetman

"...The JSF is also the first fighter designed to accommodate 95 percent of the potential US pilot population, with body weights from 103 to 245 pounds...."

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest


Big fat helmet (was not the HMDS III btw) + too narrow canopy + pilot's head too close to said canopy = not enough clearance to turn head to track target, according to the test pilot. LM has talked about a new manufacturing process that makes fabricating the canopy less expensive, not sure if they changed the dimensions in the area that the pilot's head might occupy. As far as the aircraft fitting 95% of the pilot population, that's mostly about the ejection system adapting to widely differing body weights/ sexes.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 22:28
by zero-one
basher54321 wrote:
zero-one wrote:Am I correct in saying that AF-2 is only At an energy disadvantage against the F-16 when it is at high angles of attack, but when flown at low angles of attack (20-26 deg AOA) it should not be.


There is no information in the report on this.



The last part of the 5 page report says: the flying qualities in the blended region (20-26 degrees AOA) were not intuitive or favorable. This was especially frustrating because as the sortie progressed, it was apparent that the aircraft fought best at the lower end of this alpha wheather turning or in a tree/scissors.

So apparently the F-35A fights best at 20-26 degrees AOA, just like how an F-16 would fight.

basher54321 wrote:
zero-one wrote:The A model is designed to be 50% heavier than the F-16 with a 50% bigger wing area and 50% more thrust. In short the F-35A is basically an enlarged F-16.


I don't think that will give much clue regarding actual performance - EM charts are what you need.


We may never get those, at least not within this decade, but these weight and thrust factors can be clues

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 22:30
by Gums
Salute!

Well, Zero, give me a small tail block 10 Viper with two slammers and two winders and a centerline tank and just watch.

Not today. Requirements have changed, but the basic bird is still awesome.

I go back to my solution. Have the skeptics fly Hogs and Rhinos and Vipers and Mud Hens and Tiffies and Tornados into a decent IAD that also has "average" A2A folks. Be my guest. 'raqi One did not have that. If the North Vee would have had all the assets, the first night would have been much different.

Gee is not everything. AoA is not everything. One thing about the Viper was I had a Bk 15 at Red Flag and after pulverizing our tgt we egreesed and had two Double Uglies coms over the ridge behind us. No RHAW, but we saw them crest the ridge at our six. How about 8.7 gees for 3 or 4 seconds from a 40-year old coot? Then relax a bit to avoid geeloc and watch the Double Uglies turn away and try to escape. 90 degrees in 4 seconds is impressive. At debrief they said thay had never seen the "bat turn".

Anytime you are at really high AoA you are losing energy. You better save that for your one and only one shot. Then hope his wingman is a raw nugget.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 22:52
by spazsinbad
'maus92' and considering the vHUD how relevant is 'turning the pilot head' with the HMDS III? Then if you are going to assert anything in future provide some evidence. You know the drill. IF the pilot fits the seat and the seat fits in the aircraft - then what follows? And yes I will look for the evidence of a change in canopy size; however as I recall it was some way of - probably with any future upgraded engine.

And as for your claim: "....As far as the aircraft fitting 95% of the pilot population, that's mostly about the ejection system adapting to widely differing body weights/ sexes."

WELL LOOKIE HERE - DID YOU NOT READ & UNNERSTAN what your great hero said in the BANGseat artickle? IS BS TELLING LIES AGAIN?
"...The JSF is also the first fighter designed to accommodate 95 percent of the potential US pilot population..."

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 23:10
by zero-one
Gums wrote:Salute!

Well, Zero, give me a small tail block 10 Viper with two slammers and two winders and a centerline tank and just watch.

Not today. Requirements have changed, but the basic bird is still awesome.

I go back to my solution. Have the skeptics fly Hogs and Rhinos and Vipers and Mud Hens and Tiffies and Tornados into a decent IAD that also has "average" A2A folks. Be my guest. 'raqi One did not have that. If the North Vee would have had all the assets, the first night would have been much different.

Gee is not everything. AoA is not everything. One thing about the Viper was I had a Bk 15 at Red Flag and after pulverizing our tgt we egreesed and had two Double Uglies coms over the ridge behind us. No RHAW, but we saw them crest the ridge at our six. How about 8.7 gees for 3 or 4 seconds from a 40-year old coot? Then relax a bit to avoid geeloc and watch the Double Uglies turn away and try to escape. 90 degrees in 4 seconds is impressive. At debrief they said thay had never seen the "bat turn".

Anytime you are at really high AoA you are losing energy. You better save that for your one and only one shot. Then hope his wingman is a raw nugget.

Gums sends...


Thanks Gums, I really have no doubt that the F-35 will dominate an IADS environment. My concern was, for many years we have been told that this plane will be just as good or even a little better than F-16s and F/A-18s in kinematics which is nothing to sneeze about.

Then all of a sudden we have a report like this and all the JPO has to say about it is "well its not really meant to dogfight anyway"

So what happened to all the "it will handle just like a Viper in a dogfight" talk? Were they all lies?

You said yourself, no missile will do a 180 for you, you still need the ability turn and give the missile a good Pk.

My defense of the F-35A is that, it's basically a large F-16 with high AOA. If you took the Viper at high AOA, I bet you would be at an energy deficincy as well. Of course you also have the real danger of doing a deep stall.

Thats why they said the F-35 fought best when flown at low AOA, just like an F-16. I was hoping that the JPO's defense would emphasize this. What did it look like at low AOA? Did it hold it's own?

Furthermore, the report also said that "there were no compelling reasons for the F-35 to fight at high AOA"

To me it's devastating for F-35 supporters especially since the JPO's response just seems to confirm what critics have said all along, that the aircraft is just a BVR interceptor and by no means a fighter

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 23:18
by spazsinbad
That is weird: "...the aircraft is just a BVR interceptor and by no means a fighter." The aircraft has been the JSF Joint Strike Fighter for a very long time now. Did you not understand this?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2015, 23:19
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:The last part of the 5 page report says: the flying qualities in the blended region (20-26 degrees AOA) were not intuitive or favorable. This was especially frustrating because as the sortie progressed, it was apparent that the aircraft fought best at the lower end of this alpha wheather turning or in a tree/scissors.

So apparently the F-35A fights best at 20-26 degrees AOA, just like how an F-16 would fight.


As I said there is nothing there - he says fought best. That doesn't necessarily mean that is any comparison against the target - why not just better compared to other AOA values. There appears to be nothing that specifically mentions any EM advantage anywhere over the target.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 01:08
by zero-one
spazsinbad wrote:That is weird: "...the aircraft is just a BVR interceptor and by no means a fighter." The aircraft has been the JSF Joint Strike Fighter for a very long time now. Did you not understand this?


Thats the point, and not just a strike fighter but a 5th generation strike fighter where Super maneuverability is a trademark value if we are to follow Lockheed Martin's terms.

But now that we have an attack on that trade mark, JPO's response is simply, well it will use advanced stealth and sensor fusion anyway and won't need to get WVR.

Thats besides the point, the requiremnt was for F-16 like kinematics, so that in the event that you do get into a phonebooth for what ever reason be it ROE, a second wave of bandits, LO bandits managed to get close, you still have the performance to dominate.

I guess I'm just frustrated that they haven't really proven the critics wrong until this point.

If nothing is done to revert this then I would have to conceed that the F-35 should stick to Strike missions and leave air superiority to real fighters.

A-A for the F-35 will be confined to self defense purposes only.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 01:20
by cantaz
zero-one wrote:Thats besides the point, the requiremnt was for F-16 like kinematics, so that in the event that you do get into a phonebooth for what ever reason be it ROE, a second wave of bandits, LO bandits managed to get close, you still have the performance to dominate.


No, the stated (according to Bowman) objective requirement is for Viper-like kinematics, the threshold requirement is for legacy Hornet-like kinematics.

The Hornet threshold is the low-hanging fruit here, and the subject of the report's recommendations for CLAW changes.

The Viper threshold might have to wait for a post-F135 engine, though the upgrades in the works will help a bit.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 01:22
by spazsinbad
'zero-one' Sounds fair enough - however can you explain where 'Super maneuverability' comes from? USAF has said a few times now that USAF JSFs work with F-22s and if not enough F-22s then a bunch of F-35s have to do the same job - that no other aircraft other than the F-22 can do. Other countries have to make do with what is otherwise available (no F-22s for them) and for example Australia/ADF/RAAF are comfortable with a multi-role strike fighter (the usual suspects are not but what else is there?).

I'm astonished at the impact/reaction of a single report on a single test flight, deliberately or not misinterpreted by the provider and then regenerated with alarum by the naysayers - that was the intent of AXE of course. Be patient - read the responses that explain - in context - what was going on in that one single test flight. There will be and there have been many such test flights with fixes fixed and updating of whatever was needed. This is how it goes. The F-35 test pilot made comments in a context remember - not in the finished product.

I see 'cantaz' has replied as I was typing....

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 01:33
by popcorn
What were the expectations really? The comparison has always been between combat loaded but clean F-35 vs legacy jets saddled with all sorts of external baggage. If some have taken liberties with this then disappointment and frustration are to be expected but that's on them.. Yet it's becoming a story now of the tail wagging the dog, where the least important attribute in the opinion of fighter pilots specially those who have 5Gen experience, is being blown all out of proportion. Simply because of a single test of a jet still in developmemt and for which the information and context are not really that apparent to those on the outside looking in. In the meantime, those in the loop will objectively analyze and digest the data and there will be more testing to further refine their models.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 01:56
by weasel1962
Why people like David Axe perform hack jobs with articles that twist findings, they aren't intentionally talking about the plane's lack of ability. They are targeting the voting public who can influence acquisition numbers e.g. in Canada, Netherlands etc. The voting public don't really know the difference between a test and actual combat, the public is just concerned whether the money is being used appropriately. Bad press do make a difference. The F-35 will probably suffer more losses from acquisition cuts than from actual combat. The one thing LM and the F35 program is really guilty of is very very bad PR.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 08:03
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:I expect F-35 to be about equivalent to a F-16, in some areas better, in some areas not quite as better.

This whole little BFM thing has been misconstrued. Like finding out that a championship boxer was beat up by a teen girl. LOL he sucks!! LOL Then we find out he was handcuffed, drunk, had been pepper sprayed, and the whole point was to see if he could escape from the handcuffs.
I don't think there's any misconstruing what the document said. The F-35 demonstrated very poor close-in performance in a simple (albeit canned) test against a less-than-state-of-the-art adversary. It was not placed at a disadvantage.


That said, I'd be curious to know which plane David Axe would honestly prefer to see American pilots fly into the teeth of a near-peer's contested airspace. If he still says the F-16 is better, he's either an idiot or a foreign-backed provocateur.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 08:15
by zero-one
cantaz wrote:
zero-one wrote:Thats besides the point, the requiremnt was for F-16 like kinematics, so that in the event that you do get into a phonebooth for what ever reason be it ROE, a second wave of bandits, LO bandits managed to get close, you still have the performance to dominate.


No, the stated (according to Bowman) objective requirement is for Viper-like kinematics, the threshold requirement is for legacy Hornet-like kinematics.

The Hornet threshold is the low-hanging fruit here, and the subject of the report's recommendations for CLAW changes.

The Viper threshold might have to wait for a post-F135 engine, though the upgrades in the works will help a bit.


Actually, I still think Viper like kinematics are possible as the report mad no mention of how the aircraft fought at low AOA.
All it said was it fought "best" at low AOA, though recommendations were made for the "blended region".

how good was it at low AOA? Was it energy deficient?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 08:17
by spazsinbad
Back on page 14 of this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=294208&hilit=vHud#p294208 there was this quote from me to 'maus92' (follow URL): Graphic below from Norwegian F-35 Brief Aug 2008 for future 'notional' Block 6 update - today? No idea.
"Did not I read that a block hardware future update will be a wider canopy? Possibly for some reason I'll guess...."

Download the PDF from this forum here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14514.html (PDF 3.48Mb)
ORIGINAL URL: http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/v ... _dista.pdf [still there]

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 15:59
by zero-one
More people jumping in to Stubbie's defense

fightersweep wrote:
Boy, that escalated quickly…

Perhaps people misunderstood the intent of my article yesterday, or I wasn’t clear enough or both, but I am in no way defending the F-35. As a program, it is a bloated failure. I made several references to that fact.

What I was responding to was a very slanted article, one that took a very myopic set of data points (and out-of-context pilot comments from a “leaked report”) and jumped to a very big conclusion–one that is neither accurate nor fair. I am not making any excuses for the aircraft’s performance, but I also don’t think the article (written by someone with no fighter experience) was anything more than clickbait, as they say.

Response_To_F-35_Trolls

We have sold out our fighting capability on many levels for the F-35. Like my friend and fellow fighter pilot Jack Stewart spoke of here, I think an investment in upgraded jets (Like the Block 60 Viper with AESA radar and conformal fuel tanks) would’ve been better suited for the short term. The F-35–in theory–is a great “Day One” fighter, but it should never have been touted as a one-size-fits-all answer to all tactical aviation problems. LO is just too expensive and we simply didn’t buy enough to make it cost effective. I am disappointed that the program has cost this much money without results after nearly a decade. And I am even more disappointed that it has been at the cost of our fighter fleet across all services.

But at the end of the day, American fighter pilots will be flying this aircraft, whether we like it or not. The money is already spent, and the train has already left the station. These pilots will adapt and overcome, making it a formidable fighting machine – just as was done with the F-4 in Vietnam. The F-15, F-16, and F-22 ALL had growing pains in their early years. Have you ever heard the term Lawn Dart applied to the F-16? Or how about Craptor as it applies to the F-22?
A Raptor assigned to the F-22 Combined Test Force taxis out for a sortie at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

A Raptor assigned to the F-22 Combined Test Force taxis out for a sortie at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

I take issue with irresponsible journalism that creates problems where there may not be any. The F-35 has PLENTY of issues, but as I said yesterday, it’s best to focus on those that are real, tangible, and quantifiable. Hyperbole, strawman arguments, and the like do nothing for this debate.

What happened in the “test” was just that. BFM is an art, and it takes time to develop tactics suited for each aircraft. There are some good things about the aircraft (like its high-Alpha capability) that came from that test. There are also things that need to be corrected. Any other conclusions are just flat out wrong without more data to substantiate them.

I know bashing the F-35 program is the cool thing to do right now, but I don’t think taking one pilot’s comments out of context (with very little understanding for what he was actually saying from the original author) from a leaked FOUO report is a valid way to do it. Technique only.



http://fightersweep.com/2574/f-35-vs-f- ... -thoughts/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 18:25
by thomonkey
I think that my main problem is i was expecting a response like: this sortie was testing the high aoa performance at a time when the flight control software was still being tweaked significantly. Instead we get a response of: well, its not a dogfighter anyways. The dod essentially admitted they've been lying all along and that the f35 will not have comparable maneuverability to the f16. Sad day.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 18:41
by sferrin
thomonkey wrote:I think that my main problem is i was expecting a response like: this sortie was testing the high aoa performance at a time when the flight control software was still being tweaked significantly. Instead we get a response of: well, its not a dogfighter anyways. The dod essentially admitted they've been lying all along and that the f35 will not have comparable maneuverability to the f16. Sad day.


Wahhhh. That's not at all what they said.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 19:04
by quicksilver
They ARE still tweaking the flight control laws. Evidence: the test report.

F-35 was not designed to be a gunfighter; the F-16 was. When an F-16 is fully configured for modern combat (for all you fanboys, in the real world that means tanks, TPODs, ECM, HTS, pylons and externally carried weapons) F-35A performance exceeds that of the F-16.

The F-16 is not survivable against F-35 when everyone plays full-up systems. Flight test has proven that conclusively, and it's not even close. There is a hot F-16 production line in Fort Worth. If there were any question about F-35 vs F-16, the USAF would be buying Block 60s right now.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 19:24
by cola
Beaten by a 7g limited F16 with 2 tanks? :doh:
Gee, who'd seen this coming...
But hey, you gotta pedals to yaw around, so not all is lost, right?

This forum is truly a psycho/sociological experiment.

Too bad the plane doesn't fulfill the tender propositions and I'm amused to see the 'damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead' mentality pushing this disaster even further.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 19:27
by quicksilver
Have you ever flown any BFM, Cola? Any at all?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 19:31
by cola
No, why don't you explain me how it's done? :D

EDIT: So...no tutorial?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 19:45
by SpudmanWP
cola wrote:Beaten by a 7g limited F16 with 2 tanks? :doh:
Gee, who'd seen this coming...

It was only limited to 7G until the tanks were empty.

Since the F-16 would have drawn fuel from them first they would likely have emptied on the way to the AO. Once empty, the F-16 is a 9G plane, even with empty tanks on the wings.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 19:59
by cola
@Spudman,
you can argue whatever you want...it's nothing but amusing at this point.
Beaten by F16 with two tanks is devastating, no matter how you turn it...and not only beaten since that can/possibly/maybe imply the difference in human component, but when a guy with 2k hours in F15 after 17 attempts tells you "...need...energy...", maybe its time to pull your head outta your a$$ and face the music?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 21:15
by zero-one
I guess its just frustrating for suporters of the F-35 who have defended this plane countless times as a 5th generation high performance fighter to suddenly hear this and all we have from the JPO is, "well it wasn't necessarily built to dogfight anyway"

So basically they're saying, its not really a high performance aircraft anyway. Its just frustrating to see that we may have to accept the fact that the F-35 may be just a low performance stealth strike platform.

First they said it will have the maneuverability of an F-16, then it became an F-16 with 2 wing tip AMRAAMs, then it became 2 Slamers and a centerline tank, now its an F-16 with external fuel tanks, bombs, missiles, ECM pods and external sensors.

My hope is for a major engine thrust increase on the F-35C.

Anyway I'm still waiting for the JPO or LM to release a good rebuttal on this. But if that was it, then yeah, I'd have to say that maybe the F-35 isn't really a high performance aircraft after all.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 21:21
by luke_sandoz
cola wrote:@Spudman,
you can argue whatever you want...it's nothing but amusing at this point.
Beaten by F16 with two tanks is devastating, no matter how you turn it...and not only beaten since that can/possibly/maybe imply the difference in human component, but when a guy with 2k hours in F15 after 17 attempts tells you "...need...energy...", maybe its time to pull your head outta your a$$ and face the music?


Never really appreciated how truly smart you are until now. You could make a fortune selling your remarkable insights into the F-35 limitations and the future of aerial combat to the very stupid nations like Korea, Israel, Norway, England, the Netherlands, Japan, Italy, Turkey and Australia who have already ordered this obvious, well obvious to you anyway, this obvious dog of an aircraft.

Just think you could be rich, rich, rich because you are ever so smart, smart, smart

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 21:29
by Fox1
This report and the manner in which Lockheed and the government are addressing it makes me nervous. Very nervous. I never expected the F-35 to match the F-22 in terms of raw performance. But with it being built up as "second only to the Raptor" in the aerial arena, I did expect it to perform well enough to not get its clock cleaned by a Block 40 2 seat Viper in a dogfight, whatever the circumstances of the test. It is widely acknowledged that the F-15 and F-16 are inferior to the latest Flanker variants in the WVR arena. Yet we are equipping ourselves pretty much exclusively with an aircraft that has dogfight performance inferior to that of the F-15 or F-16? Tell me how that could possibly be considered anything resembling a good idea?

So far, the only thing I'm hearing coming from Lockheed or the Air Force are comments about technological sophistication and AF-2 lacking much of this technology. Yet technology doesn't change the fact that under this set of circumstances, an F-35 was trounced by an F-16, and not even the latest variant of the F-16. What happened to the mantra "second only to the Raptor in air to air combat"? Now it seems they are simply trying to deflect this conversation away from performance and toward technology. "The F-35 isn't meant to dogfight"? Really? What a load of horse manure. I don't care how technologically advanced an aircraft is, the possibility always exist that the opposing aircraft may make it to the merge. If and when that happens, you better damn well have an airplane that can perform where the rubber meets the road. An aircraft that is designed to replace the F-16 and F-18 should at the very minimum be able to perform as well as (and preferably BETTER than) its predecessor in terms of kinematics and maneuverability. The mere fact that we are even having this debate right now is telling.

So basically, where we seem to be at this point is that we have a very technologically sophisticated aircraft in the F-35, although that technology isn't yet mature. But it also appears that we have an aircraft that is seriously lacking in terms of raw performance. Such a machine will be dependent on technology to win. If and when that technically breaks down, is overcome or misused, then the F-35 becomes vulnerable. Very vulnerable.

I would have no problem with the F-35 program if it was mainly meant to serve as an attack aircraft and had the F-22 been bought in sufficient numbers. The F-35 certainly appears to be a more survivable and capable attack platform than the aircraft it will replace. But the problem is, we didn't build enough F-22s. The F-35 is going to have to perform as a fighter too because there is no alternative. The F-15s and F-16s are aging and being retired, and we aren't buying any new examples such as Block 60 Vipers. The Raptor is out of production. And there are no other alternatives. It will be years before anything new will go into development. So for better or worse, we are stuck with the F-35 to handle the bulk of our fighter duties for the next 20 or 30 years.

Maybe everything will work out well. Maybe our enemies won't be able to find a workable solution around our low observables technology during this time period. Maybe the advanced sensor fusion abilities of the F-35 will work as advertised. Maybe we will in fact kill any enemy aircraft before they can get close enough to pose a threat to the F-35. But I'd rather not leave the security of this nation and the safety of our air crews in the hands of "hope". Should stealth technology become obsolete tomorrow, the F-22 will still be the most formidable fighter in the world because of its raw performance and maneuverability, as well as its technology. The USAF doesn't plan on getting into dogfights using the Raptor either, but if they do, the F-22 actually possesses the performance to shine against anything flying or in development. Can the same be said for the F-35? It is totally dependent on low observability and technology for its survival. If either are compromised, are overcome or fail to work properly, it will become a sitting duck against potential adversaries because it apparently doesn't have the ability to perform on the level of even our 4th generation designs.

I am all for the advancement of technology. I very much approve of sensor fusion, DAS, the new helmet and all the wonderful technology being developed for the F-35. I think those things are terrific. But I don't think it is a wise idea to make oneself entirely dependent on technology alone while ignoring performance. If and when all else fails, the F-35 should be built to perform and win in nasty, close-in engagements that have always characterized air combat, even in the age of BVR missiles and King Kong radars. But the comments from Lockheed seem to suggest they have sacrificed performance and pinned all their hopes on technology. If that is indeed the case (and I hope it isn't), I think at some point that decision will bite us on the a$$.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 21:39
by sferrin
Fox1 wrote:This report and the manner in which Lockheed and the government are addressing it makes me nervous. Very nervous. I never expected the F-35 to match the F-22 in terms of raw performance. But with it being built up as "second only to the Raptor" in the aerial arena, I did expect it to perform well enough to not get its clock cleaned by a Block 40 2 seat Viper in a dogfight,


Yeah, that's not what happened. :roll: Stop being such a drama queen.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 21:54
by spazsinbad
<sarc on go> I did not know the Dutch were such liars but F-35 pilots know squat - even when they fly it they have to squat to pee eh. <sarc off go> :mrgreen: [solly dutchies I knows youse are straight talkers - hence the sarcasm tags for my doubledutch (gibberish)] :mrgreen:
DUTCH GORILLAS
Jan 2015 Arnaud Boxman & Kees van der Mark

"Arnaud Boxman and Kees van der Mark spoke with Dutch pilots and technicians at Eglin Air Force Base about the preparations being made to participate in the tri-national F-35 Operational Test and Evaluation programme....

...When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends
and accelerates like a clean F-16. The power of the aircraft is really impressive. The Generation II helmet is also phenomenal. It is very stable when moving your head and much more comfortable than the JHMCS [Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System] helmet we use in the F-16.”..."

Source: Air International Vol.88 No.1 January 2015

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:06
by spazsinbad
And about the helmet used in the test - this info rules out that the HMDS III was in use:
Testing the F-35 – an Australian perspective
Sep 2014 NIGEL PITTAWAY

"...Block 3I software is also required to support the latest Generation 3 flight helmet..."

Source: AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL SEPTEMBER 2014

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:08
by Fox1
sferrin wrote:
Fox1 wrote:This report and the manner in which Lockheed and the government are addressing it makes me nervous. Very nervous. I never expected the F-35 to match the F-22 in terms of raw performance. But with it being built up as "second only to the Raptor" in the aerial arena, I did expect it to perform well enough to not get its clock cleaned by a Block 40 2 seat Viper in a dogfight,


Yeah, that's not what happened. :roll: Stop being such a drama queen.


Based on what the test pilot reported, yes, that is indeed what happened. And Lockheed Martin isn't even trying to deny it. Nowhere during any part of this discussion has anyone from the USAF or from Lockheed Martin suggested the F-35 outperformed the Block 40 D model in any facet of this test, or even managed to hold its own. But the test pilot did say the F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage to the Block 40 Viper during every encounter during this test. Sometimes what isn't being said speaks volumes. Had the F-35 not performed so poorly here, do you think everyone involved wouldn't have come forth with glowing reports about the F-35's performance? Instead, the best defense they can muster is a rather lame one that doesn't even address the issue in question. So yes, based on what we've been told to date, I think we have plenty of reason to be skeptical.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:10
by luke_sandoz
From 2013.

"Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

"The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission,"

What would be amazing is if those claims, if we are to believe this Axe story, have only now been exposed as false. All those test flights but numerous pilots from multiple nations, all the oversight reviews, contract reviews, performance reviews, Congressional investigators who have been itching to find faults with the F-35 and everyone missed this huge requirements deficit?

Or is this just another ginned up media drive by that takes a limited amount of information and draws grandiose, exaggerated and negative conclusions that are not really supported by the preponderance of evidence?

YMMV

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:19
by quicksilver
cola wrote:No, why don't you explain me how it's done? :D

EDIT: So...no tutorial?


Would take more time than I have left in my life, because it's clear from your comments that you dont know a pig from a ham sandwich.

Me? 5 different aircraft vs F4S, F5E/F, F14A/B/D, F15A/B/C/D/E, F16A/B/C/D (PW and GE motors), F18A/B/C/D, A4E/F/M, AV8A/B, A10, Mirage 2K, Tornado, and KFIR C1.

BTDT -- got the t-shirt.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you dont know what you're talking about.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:29
by borg
I may have made fun of the F-35 just for giggle.
But I think you whom think this article really matter should listen to the guys here whom know Aerodynamics.

For me there is nothing out of the ordinary in this article.
Afaik, we do not know how much fuel the F-35 had in these test run.

And if you think it it does not matter.. think again.
An F-4E with 30% fuel outperform the Su-27S by a good margin.
How is it possible? Yes if the Flanker has 100% fuel.

A Block 40 F-16 with two empty wet bags and 50% fuel also beat the Flanker with 100% fuel.

Do you see the Connection..

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:30
by quicksilver
sferrin wrote:
Fox1 wrote:This report and the manner in which Lockheed and the government are addressing it makes me nervous. Very nervous. I never expected the F-35 to match the F-22 in terms of raw performance. But with it being built up as "second only to the Raptor" in the aerial arena, I did expect it to perform well enough to not get its clock cleaned by a Block 40 2 seat Viper in a dogfight,


Yeah, that's not what happened. :roll: Stop being such a drama queen.


x2

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:37
by quicksilver
cola wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
cola wrote:No, why don't you explain me how it's done? :D

EDIT: So...no tutorial?


Would take more time than I have left in my life, because it's clear from your comments that you dont know a pig from a ham sandwich.

Me? 5 different aircraft vs F4S, F5E/F, F14A/B/D, F15A/B/C/D/E, F16A/B/C/D (PW and GE motors), F18A/B/C/D, A4E/F/M, AV8A/B, A10, Mirage 2K, Tornado, and KFIR C1.

BTDT -- got the t-shirt.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you dont know what you're talking about.


You're a funny feller QS.
You also flew in ODF, right?


Nope

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:48
by cola
How's that?
Previously you implied you did...was kinda looking forward in ascertaining that publicly...but apparently, you imply a lot.
And the second you started to list the planes, I was like ... LOL ... too funny.

Anyway, stay safe and be smart.
You did a piss poor job on this one.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:53
by quicksilver
cola wrote:How's that?
Previously you implied you did...was kinda looking forward in ascertaining that publicly...but apparently, you imply a lot.
And the second you started to list the planes, I was like ... LOL ... too funny.

Anyway, stay safe and be smart.
You did a piss poor job on this one.


Desert Fox? Not a chance. You are wrong about that also; add that to your list.

"Here's your sign..."

:salute:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 22:57
by spazsinbad
This article now available Scribd is on this forum as I recall so I should look for it eh. Meanwhile these dregs will be posted from it from the 2009 frame of time in which she was wrote - this is for the claims that 'no one told me' SOB SOB. :roll: :shock:

Complete article here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=21808&p=292001&hilit=comfortably+capabilities#p292001
Lockheed Martin defends JSF's close-in capabilities
13-Feb-2009 Julian Kerr

"Key Points
- The F-35 has little advantage over other aircraft in combat situations within visual range, Lockheed Martin has conceded

- However, the aircraft's superior stealth and situational awareness means it comfortably outperforms rivals in longer-range scenarios"...

Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/261728653/lo ... pabilities

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 23:08
by optimist
Fox1 wrote:This report and the manner in which Lockheed and the government are addressing it makes me nervous. Very nervous.

Nothing has changed, lockheed to gov committee
"Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.
...: And it is very important to note that our constructive simulations that Mr Burbage talks about without the pilot in the loop are the lowest number that we talk about—the greater than six to one. When we include the pilot in the loop activities, they even do better when we include all of that in our partner manned tactical simulation facility."
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0001%22

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 23:19
by spazsinbad
It seems this 'Kelly' is believable on the secretion process forum - I'll guess it is 'squirt' Kelly in that case - but anyway....
Lightning 09 - USMC Lt. Col. Matt Kelly:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_4419.jpg
&
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... ry_style=3
'mkellytx': 03 Jul 2015
“First of all this was a DT test out of Edwards, not an OT, OPEVAL, etc. out of Eglin or Nellis or Yuma, etc. As such the focus was verification of the technical performance. This is pretty clear from the Objectives note, "The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive sick/pedal inputs." Also, later note, "various specified maneuvers in a dynamic environment." So in plain English rather than running a tightly scripted test aimed at verifying a specific result, this was an unscripted attempt to see if they could break the control laws at high AoA. This was borne out by the criteria, "The Flying Qualities criteria were that the aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected or unpredictable aircraft responses." In other words will it depart, or is the anti spin logic too conservative.

No where in the objectives does it say dogfight/BFM an F-16 with the objective of winning said dogfight. So, the objective was to evaluate the control laws, hence the reason all of those recommendations were about the control laws. Now, a prerequisite of spins/departures typically are high AoAs, onset rates are a big part of departures so necessarily the anti-spin logic will damp them. Since, this flight regime is pretty non-linear it shouldn't be surprising that those laws require tweaking based off of actual up and away testing.”

Source: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg253423

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 00:23
by sferrin
Fox1 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Fox1 wrote:This report and the manner in which Lockheed and the government are addressing it makes me nervous. Very nervous. I never expected the F-35 to match the F-22 in terms of raw performance. But with it being built up as "second only to the Raptor" in the aerial arena, I did expect it to perform well enough to not get its clock cleaned by a Block 40 2 seat Viper in a dogfight,


Yeah, that's not what happened. :roll: Stop being such a drama queen.


Based on what the test pilot reported, yes, that is indeed what happened. And Lockheed Martin isn't even trying to deny it. Nowhere during any part of this discussion has anyone from the USAF or from Lockheed Martin suggested the F-35 outperformed the Block 40 D model in any facet of this test, or even managed to hold its own. But the test pilot did say the F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage to the Block 40 Viper during every encounter during this test. Sometimes what isn't being said speaks volumes. Had the F-35 not performed so poorly here, do you think everyone involved wouldn't have come forth with glowing reports about the F-35's performance? Instead, the best defense they can muster is a rather lame one that doesn't even address the issue in question. So yes, based on what we've been told to date, I think we have plenty of reason to be skeptical.



Saying it twice doesn't make it true.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 00:24
by sferrin
cola wrote:Beaten by a 7g limited F16 with 2 tanks? :doh:
Gee, who'd seen this coming...
But hey, you gotta pedals to yaw around, so not all is lost, right?

This forum is truly a psycho/sociological experiment.


I believe they refer to you as "Exhibit A".

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 00:27
by sferrin
cola wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
cola wrote:No, why don't you explain me how it's done? :D

EDIT: So...no tutorial?


Would take more time than I have left in my life, because it's clear from your comments that you dont know a pig from a ham sandwich.

Me? 5 different aircraft vs F4S, F5E/F, F14A/B/D, F15A/B/C/D/E, F16A/B/C/D (PW and GE motors), F18A/B/C/D, A4E/F/M, AV8A/B, A10, Mirage 2K, Tornado, and KFIR C1.

BTDT -- got the t-shirt.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you dont know what you're talking about.


You're a funny feller QS.
You also flew in ODF, right?


Did you?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 00:50
by F16VIPER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Kx6b7oKA8

Jon Beesley in relation to the F-35's A2A capability

Uploaded on 21 May 2009
Lockheed Martin F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley on May 21 describes the F-35's comparative value as a dogfighting aircraft. The video was shot under the wing of AA-1, the first non-weight-optimized F-35 prototype aircraft, at Lockheed's fighter plant in Fort Worth, Texas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWsaJDc8PI

Jon Beesley on Sukhoi air show stunts

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 00:59
by citanon
Fox1 wrote:Based on what the test pilot reported, yes, that is indeed what happened. And Lockheed Martin isn't even trying to deny it. Nowhere during any part of this discussion has anyone from the USAF or from Lockheed Martin suggested the F-35 outperformed the Block 40 D model in any facet of this test, or even managed to hold its own. But the test pilot did say the F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage to the Block 40 Viper during every encounter during this test. Sometimes what isn't being said speaks volumes. Had the F-35 not performed so poorly here, do you think everyone involved wouldn't have come forth with glowing reports about the F-35's performance? Instead, the best defense they can muster is a rather lame one that doesn't even address the issue in question. So yes, based on what we've been told to date, I think we have plenty of reason to be skeptical.


From the stated test objectives:

Test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative maneuvers....... Qualitative observations were made regarding the high AoA capability, cues that the aircraft was entering a low energy state, as well as various human factor considerations.


Later in the report:

The EM of the F35A is substantially inferior to the F-15E..... so in general, the high AoA capabilities of the jet could not be used in an effective way without significantly reducing follow on maneuvering potential.


That's the basic premise of the test. The F35A was flying to stress high AoA capbilities against an F-16 flying to win. Could you understand how a plane flying at an increased angle of attack relative to the airstream, meaning that its body is basically acting as a gigantic air brake, could be at a "distinct EM disadvantage" to another fighter that is not?

Why don't we wait for more testing and evaluation before jumping to conclusions based on one specialized test early in the refinement of the aircraft control laws? :bang:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 01:17
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:Back on page 14 of this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=294208&hilit=vHud#p294208 there was this quote from me to 'maus92' (follow URL): Graphic below from Norwegian F-35 Brief Aug 2008 for future 'notional' Block 6 update - today? No idea.
"Did not I read that a block hardware future update will be a wider canopy? Possibly for some reason I'll guess...."

Download the PDF from this forum here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14514.html (PDF 3.48Mb)
ORIGINAL URL: http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/v ... _dista.pdf [still there]


Really? Block 6/7? - That's in the 2030's. I'm more concerned about getting real capabilities in Block 4.1. Not sure what "canopy expansion" actually means in the context of block 6/7. Does it mean making it larger for the helmet to fit inside of, or does it mean extending the transparency backwards for better unaided rearward visibility? It's a bit unclear. But based on this pilot report, they should think about bringing a canopy reshaping modification forward to Block 4.1 /4.2 so pilots can rotate their heads without restriction / having to be a contortionist.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 01:32
by popcorn
Lots of rush to judgment and unjustified conclusions at this point based on a single development test.
Once the jet starts participating in large-scale, real world exercises eg. Red Flag, Northern Edge that will realistically stress the total package, then commentary will have more value. Short of actual combat, those exercises will be representative of what it brings to the fight.
All up to this point is really just a tempest in the internet teacup.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 01:33
by spazsinbad
maus92 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Back on page 14 of this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=294208&hilit=vHud#p294208 there was this quote from me to 'maus92' (follow URL): Graphic below from Norwegian F-35 Brief Aug 2008 for future 'notional' Block 6 update - today? No idea.
"Did not I read that a block hardware future update will be a wider canopy? Possibly for some reason I'll guess...."

Download the PDF from this forum here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14514.html (PDF 3.48Mb)
ORIGINAL URL: http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/v ... _dista.pdf [still there]


Really? Block 6/7? - That's in the 2030's. I'm more concerned about getting real capabilities in Block 4.1. Not sure what "canopy expansion" actually means in the context of block 6/7. Does it mean making it larger for the helmet to fit inside of, or does it mean extending the transparency backwards for better unaided rearward visibility? It's a bit unclear. But based on this pilot report, they should think about bringing a canopy reshaping modification forward to Block 4.1 /4.2 so pilots can rotate their heads without restriction / having to be a contortionist.

Such outrage 'maus92' - so the canopy was in for a change at least in 2008. Yes I have no idea about what that means. Probably it is on a big back burner because the F-35 pilot in a Block 3F aircraft that is working AOK will have the vHUD in HMDS III to look in places he/she is not comfortable swivelling towards. All done at a flick of a switch and back to forward where helmet is pointing view. How difficult is that for you to understand?

Are you or have you been a fighter pilot? I have posted what a chore that task can be in ACM - particularly over a long period of time the neck / spine problems that can develop despite preventative measures can be grounding issues. I will wager that F-35 pilots using the technology described above will be more than capable compared to any non-issue such as NOT needing to swivel their helmeted heads much at all. This fact alone will mean a more capable pilot not handicapped by the G encumbered neck swivel. Standby to standby for an updated 'Doc My Neck Hurts' PDF.... NOW WITH ADDED G-LOC monitoring - which will also be helped by NOT having to head/helmet swivel under high G loading.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 01:34
by cola
quicksilver wrote:Desert Fox?

No, you said you flew in Deny Fligth.
What corridor you used to enter Bosnian airspace (VOR/town/significant landmark) in what type of a plane and to whom did you have to announce your arrival?
It's all declassified now, so let's have it.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 02:18
by XanderCrews
Fox1 wrote:This report and the manner in which Lockheed and the government are addressing it makes me nervous. Very nervous. I never expected the F-35 to match the F-22 in terms of raw performance. But with it being built up as "second only to the Raptor" in the aerial arena, I did expect it to perform well enough to not get its clock cleaned by a Block 40 2 seat Viper in a dogfight, whatever the circumstances of the test. It is widely acknowledged that the F-15 and F-16 are inferior to the latest Flanker variants in the WVR arena. Yet we are equipping ourselves pretty much exclusively with an aircraft that has dogfight performance inferior to that of the F-15 or F-16? Tell me how that could possibly be considered anything resembling a good idea?

So far, the only thing I'm hearing coming from Lockheed or the Air Force are comments about technological sophistication and AF-2 lacking much of this technology. Yet technology doesn't change the fact that under this set of circumstances, an F-35 was trounced by an F-16, and not even the latest variant of the F-16. What happened to the mantra "second only to the Raptor in air to air combat"? Now it seems they are simply trying to deflect this conversation away from performance and toward technology. "The F-35 isn't meant to dogfight"? Really? What a load of horse manure. I don't care how technologically advanced an aircraft is, the possibility always exist that the opposing aircraft may make it to the merge. If and when that happens, you better damn well have an airplane that can perform where the rubber meets the road. An aircraft that is designed to replace the F-16 and F-18 should at the very minimum be able to perform as well as (and preferably BETTER than) its predecessor in terms of kinematics and maneuverability. The mere fact that we are even having this debate right now is telling.

So basically, where we seem to be at this point is that we have a very technologically sophisticated aircraft in the F-35, although that technology isn't yet mature. But it also appears that we have an aircraft that is seriously lacking in terms of raw performance. Such a machine will be dependent on technology to win. If and when that technically breaks down, is overcome or misused, then the F-35 becomes vulnerable. Very vulnerable.

I would have no problem with the F-35 program if it was mainly meant to serve as an attack aircraft and had the F-22 been bought in sufficient numbers. The F-35 certainly appears to be a more survivable and capable attack platform than the aircraft it will replace. But the problem is, we didn't build enough F-22s. The F-35 is going to have to perform as a fighter too because there is no alternative. The F-15s and F-16s are aging and being retired, and we aren't buying any new examples such as Block 60 Vipers. The Raptor is out of production. And there are no other alternatives. It will be years before anything new will go into development. So for better or worse, we are stuck with the F-35 to handle the bulk of our fighter duties for the next 20 or 30 years.

Maybe everything will work out well. Maybe our enemies won't be able to find a workable solution around our low observables technology during this time period. Maybe the advanced sensor fusion abilities of the F-35 will work as advertised. Maybe we will in fact kill any enemy aircraft before they can get close enough to pose a threat to the F-35. But I'd rather not leave the security of this nation and the safety of our air crews in the hands of "hope". Should stealth technology become obsolete tomorrow, the F-22 will still be the most formidable fighter in the world because of its raw performance and maneuverability, as well as its technology. The USAF doesn't plan on getting into dogfights using the Raptor either, but if they do, the F-22 actually possesses the performance to shine against anything flying or in development. Can the same be said for the F-35? It is totally dependent on low observability and technology for its survival. If either are compromised, are overcome or fail to work properly, it will become a sitting duck against potential adversaries because it apparently doesn't have the ability to perform on the level of even our 4th generation designs.

I am all for the advancement of technology. I very much approve of sensor fusion, DAS, the new helmet and all the wonderful technology being developed for the F-35. I think those things are terrific. But I don't think it is a wise idea to make oneself entirely dependent on technology alone while ignoring performance. If and when all else fails, the F-35 should be built to perform and win in nasty, close-in engagements that have always characterized air combat, even in the age of BVR missiles and King Kong radars. But the comments from Lockheed seem to suggest they have sacrificed performance and pinned all their hopes on technology. If that is indeed the case (and I hope it isn't), I think at some point that decision will bite us on the a$$.



All this time spent posting that could have been better spent reading the actual report...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 02:24
by XanderCrews
cola wrote:Beaten by a 7g limited F16 with 2 tanks? :doh:
Gee, who'd seen this coming...
But hey, you gotta pedals to yaw around, so not all is lost, right?

This forum is truly a psycho/sociological experiment.

Too bad the plane doesn't fulfill the tender propositions and I'm amused to see the 'damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead' mentality pushing this disaster even further.



cola wrote:How's that?
Previously you implied you did...was kinda looking forward in ascertaining that publicly...but apparently, you imply a lot.
And the second you started to list the planes, I was like ... LOL ... too funny.

Anyway, stay safe and be smart.
You did a piss poor job on this one.


Speaking of psychos...

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, study, and comprehend, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

In the mean time, stay bitter 8)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 03:07
by thepointblank
The more I read the report, the more it eerily sounds like comparisons between the F/A-18 and the F-16. The F-16 is superior in a sustained turn fight, but the F/A-18 dominates at the low speed, high AoA fight.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 03:13
by sferrin
cola wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Desert Fox?

No, you said you flew in Deny Fligth.
What corridor you used to enter Bosnian airspace (VOR/town/significant landmark) in what type of a plane and to whom did you have to announce your arrival?
It's all declassified now, so let's have it.



Where did you fly? Let's have it.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 03:24
by count_to_10
Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but it sounds like the report is really just saying that it isn't a good strategy to gun-fight an unladen F-16 with an F-35A at high AoA, and that the control laws aren't optimized.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 04:02
by mk82
cola wrote:No, why don't you explain me how it's done? :D

EDIT: So...no tutorial?


So STFU!

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 04:06
by mk82
cola wrote:@Spudman,
you can argue whatever you want...it's nothing but amusing at this point.
Beaten by F16 with two tanks is devastating, no matter how you turn it...and not only beaten since that can/possibly/maybe imply the difference in human component, but when a guy with 2k hours in F15 after 17 attempts tells you "...need...energy...", maybe its time to pull your head outta your a$$ and face the music?


Just like David Axe, cherry picking the report like an a*sehole and providing no context. Why don't you shove your head further up you ****? You would look better.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 04:09
by mk82
cola wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
cola wrote:No, why don't you explain me how it's done? :D

EDIT: So...no tutorial?


Would take more time than I have left in my life, because it's clear from your comments that you dont know a pig from a ham sandwich.

Me? 5 different aircraft vs F4S, F5E/F, F14A/B/D, F15A/B/C/D/E, F16A/B/C/D (PW and GE motors), F18A/B/C/D, A4E/F/M, AV8A/B, A10, Mirage 2K, Tornado, and KFIR C1.

BTDT -- got the t-shirt.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you dont know what you're talking about.


You're a funny feller QS.
You also flew in ODF, right?


Oh I know Cola, the only flying you have done is in a latrine....on an air base.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 04:11
by mk82
cola wrote:How's that?
Previously you implied you did...was kinda looking forward in ascertaining that publicly...but apparently, you imply a lot.
And the second you started to list the planes, I was like ... LOL ... too funny.

Anyway, stay safe and be smart.
You did a piss poor job on this one.


Seriously go f*ck yourself

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 04:17
by mk82
borg wrote:I may have made fun of the F-35 just for giggle.
But I think you whom think this article really matter should listen to the guys here whom know Aerodynamics.

For me there is nothing out of the ordinary in this article.
Afaik, we do not know how much fuel the F-35 had in these test run.

And if you think it it does not matter.. think again.
An F-4E with 30% fuel outperform the Su-27S by a good margin.
How is it possible? Yes if the Flanker has 100% fuel.

A Block 40 F-16 with two empty wet bags and 50% fuel also beat the Flanker with 100% fuel.

Do you see the Connection..


Spot on Borg! In addition to the flight tests earlier this year not being about how long is the F16's BFM schlong in comparison to the F35's BFM schlong.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 04:30
by mk82
thomonkey wrote:I think that my main problem is i was expecting a response like: this sortie was testing the high aoa performance at a time when the flight control software was still being tweaked significantly. Instead we get a response of: well, its not a dogfighter anyways. The dod essentially admitted they've been lying all along and that the f35 will not have comparable maneuverability to the f16. Sad day.


I think the F35 JPO should have thought a little more about their press releases. Should have been more direct on the problems with David "f*cking putz" Axe's blog article.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 05:55
by Scorpion1alpha
mk82, KNOCK IT OFF!

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 06:36
by geforcerfx
count_to_10 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but it sounds like the report is really just saying that it isn't a good strategy to gun-fight an unladen F-16 with an F-35A at high AoA, and that the control laws aren't optimized.


Yeah that was the impression I got.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 07:53
by mk82
Scorpion1alpha wrote:mk82, KNOCK IT OFF!


Sorry. Got it.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 07:58
by lookieloo
mk82 wrote:I think the F35 JPO should have thought a little more about their press releases. Should have been more direct on the problems with David "f*cking putz" Axe's blog article.
Perhaps a simple reminder that Axe and his crew of SJW hipsters writing about military matters are the rough equivalent of vegetarians writing a blog on barbeque... and acting like they know better how to do it than the actual pit-masters.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 08:20
by mk82
lookieloo wrote:
mk82 wrote:I think the F35 JPO should have thought a little more about their press releases. Should have been more direct on the problems with David "f*cking putz" Axe's blog article.
Perhaps a simple reminder that Axe and his crew of SJW hipsters writing about military matters are the rough equivalent of vegetarians writing a blog on barbeque... and acting like they know better how to do it than the actual pit-masters.


An excellent analogy good sir! :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 08:54
by rkap
Instead of debating the Aviation week article it would be a good idea to read what the actual Pilots Report says.
The most damning part attached.
The full Report by the Pilot is available [below] and also on a few other sites.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-f ... 9a4e66f3eb

F35.jpg


I will let all the experts decide if the weaknesses reported on can be fixed completely by control law changes or other.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 10:36
by Dragon029
rkap wrote:Instead of debating the Aviation week article it would be a good idea to read what the actual Pilots Report says.



rkap, the full report was posted about 10 pages ago; read the previous discussions.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 13:19
by fedaykin
I have registered especially to post a comment in this thread, I am a regular denizen of Key Pub forums and have regularly locked horns with Mr Passive Aggressive LowObservable (a certain journo we all know :D )

Well I just wanted to share something amusing, LO after spending the last few days gleefully lording it over a thread on that forum about this leaked paper has had to eat humble pie and make an apology.

An alleged pilot from the 412 TW (albeit he didn't reveal that in his post) registered there to make some polite corrections to the nonsense being spouted and explain how testing actually works:

mkellytx mkellytx is online now
Rank 5 Registered User
Join Date
Dec 2009
Posts
26
First of all way too much is being made of this test and some players are taking things seriously out of context to grind axes. So, what is of primary importance is to understand what the test objectives were. The FLTS's out at Edwards don't fly unless they have a clear objective to gather technical data, that's what Developmental Test is all about. So, what were the objectives? From the report:

OBJECTIVE
The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative
maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs. The evaluation focused on the
overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic
environment. This consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral
setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet MSL. The Flying Qualities criteria were that the
aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected,
or unpredictable aircraft responses. Qualitative observations were made regarding the high AoA
capability, cues that the aircraft was entering a low energy state, as well as various human factors
considerations.
Please note that the object wasn't to see how the F-35 stacked up to the Viper as a dogfight, rather it was to press the limits of the high AoA control laws and then report out the flying qualities in that regime, using various specified maneuvers. The Viper was there to make things dynamic and unscripted. Also, please note "elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs" are also preludes to departing an aircraft, so the evaluation of the effectiveness was how does the anti-spin logic effect high AoA BFM. Of course that's exactly what the JPO statement said.

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against.
Next take a look at the setups:

MISSION EXECUTION
The sortie consisted of standard administration to the Sea Test Range. Ranging exercises were
conducted to familiarize the target aircraft with F-35 visual cues. An offensive capture/tracking task was
completed by the F-35 from 6,000 feet slant range with a 3,000 foot vertical offset at 22,000' MSl and
400 kts. All other testing consisted of traditional BFM setups starting at 22,000' MSL and 440 kts for 6K
and 9K fights and 20,000' MSl at 380 kts for 3K fights. The neutral fights began at approximately
18,000' to 20,000' with no limitations on airspeed or altitude following the check away. The floor was
10,000' MSL. In all, there were seventeen engagements. No loads or other aircraft limits were
exceeded with unrestricted throttle, stick, and rudder inputs.
All I have handy right now are the Block 50/52 performance charts, but they're close enough to the 40 to show that the 3K, 6K and 9K setups are right at the sweet spots of the Viper's performance.

Two 370's Drag Index 70
22,000' MSL 440 KCAS is 0.96M
20,000' MSL 380 KCAS is 0.81M
Note assuming KCAS not KTAS since that's what displays in the HUD and the EM chart below

Click image for larger version.

Name: Block 50 20kft EM DI 50.jpg
Views: 12
Size: 273.6 KB
ID: 238893

Puts things in perspective here. So, the Viper was flying right around it's corner and max instantaneous, while the F-35 was supposed to go elevated AoA and see if the control laws would prevent the plane from departing when performing elevated AoA BFM. The Viper was at a clear advantage all along, but it wasn't there to win, it was there as a visual reference to maneuver against. The whole point was to put the F-35 in a bad position and see what the control laws did. Which is exactly what the JPO said.

While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading.
Turns out the early law are biased towards departure prevention(not a bad thing early in a program), not exactly an Earth shattering discovery, and that there's plenty of margin available to improve performance, again not exactly Earth shattering. At least a sizable subset of these critics aren't old enough to remember that the first wave of FBW A/C went through similar cycle or didn't pay attention/forgot that Super Bug and Raptor did also.

Now with the critic's original argument discredited they take something else out of context...Wash, lather, repeat, the cycle continues. They're always certain their right but curiously avoid making a stand in the face of a rigorous technical argument.


Old LO couldn't let that stand so as usual with anybody who isn't lock step with his views he responded with a Snarky Passive aggressive comment:

LowObservable's Avatar LowObservable LowObservable is online now
Rank 5 Registered User
Join Date
Jul 2007
Location
London
Posts
942
Mkelly "TX" (hmm, a few smug know-it-all posters from TX seem to be cropping up here and there, coincidentally I'm sure) manages to explain the whole report away without once referring to energy maneuverability (until prompted by Andraxxus), which was the report writer's main issue...


Whereupon Mkelly responded with this:

mkellytx mkellytx is online now
Rank 5 Registered User
Join Date
Dec 2009
Posts
26
Quote Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
Mkelly "TX" (hmm, a few smug know-it-all posters from TX seem to be cropping up here and there, coincidentally I'm sure) manages to explain the whole report away without once referring to energy maneuverability (until prompted by Andraxxus), which was the report writer's main issue...
Innuendo and name calling, that's unbecoming LO.

If by smug you mean to say speaking confidently on a topic I'm not qualified to speak about, then well you decide. Nearly half of my time in uniform was as an aircrew in the 412 TW, prior to that an engineering Master's Degree focused on flight test, flight dynamics and control system design, been a licensed pilot for 22 years and counting, and yes I've written my share of post flight reports, and test plans, and safety plans, and test information sheets, and test cards, even managed to get myself shot at a few times.

So perhaps I've erred, misread and got it wrong. Perhaps I'm just inarticulate, hobbled by my two engineering degrees or could be those pesky NDA's that force me to keep quiet and instead focus on fundamentals like test execution/conduct...As a professional flight tester it does rankle to see test executed as written, data collected as requested and then see that misused to support some (not so) hidden agenda.

I've written my share of DR's and found some really big Cat I's so I appreciate what the writer of that report has done.


Realising that he was now dealing with somebody who might actually know what they are talking about and might even meet at a press conference old LO back pedals with amusing speed...it was just a case of mistaken identity in haste :?

4th July 2015, 12:47 #268 LowObservable's Avatar LowObservable LowObservable is online now
Rank 5 Registered User
Join Date
Jul 2007
Location
London
Posts
942
Mkelly- Apologies for reacting too quickly and negatively. I had been dealing with a troll elsewhere.

However, I think your summary is too dismissive of the report's discussion of energy maneuverability. The point the pilot seemed to be making was that there were two factor in the way of using high AoA in an unscripted scenario: the various limiters and EM, the latter meaning that using high AoA killed a lot of energy quickly and it could not be recovered. More pitch rate would be of some use but not fix the problem.

The other issue - it may be why the established critics are getting heard - is that "less EM than a Block 40" implies the diametric opposite of what program people have been saying loudly and aggressively since they squashed the RAND "baby seals" report in 2008.


Priceless, there was a mild attempt at saving some face with a "What about the EM issue..."

Of course he will be rapidly back to being Passive aggressive to everybody else no doubt! Sorry for the long first post but I hope you all find it amusing!

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 13:56
by uclass
fedaykin wrote:I have registered especially to post a comment in this thread, I am a regular denizen of Key Pub forums and have regularly locked horns with Mr Passive Aggressive LowObservable (a certain journo we all know :D )

Well I just wanted to share something amusing, LO after spending the last few days gleefully lording it over a thread on that forum about this leaked paper has had to eat humble pie and make an apology.

An alleged pilot from the 412 TW (albeit he didn't reveal that in his post) registered there to make some polite corrections to the nonsense being spouted and explain how testing actually works:

mkellytx mkellytx is online now
Rank 5 Registered User
Join Date
Dec 2009
Posts
26
First of all way too much is being made of this test and some players are taking things seriously out of context to grind axes. So, what is of primary importance is to understand what the test objectives were. The FLTS's out at Edwards don't fly unless they have a clear objective to gather technical data, that's what Developmental Test is all about. So, what were the objectives? From the report:

OBJECTIVE
The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative
maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs. The evaluation focused on the
overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic
environment. This consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral
setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet MSL. The Flying Qualities criteria were that the
aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected,
or unpredictable aircraft responses. Qualitative observations were made regarding the high AoA
capability, cues that the aircraft was entering a low energy state, as well as various human factors
considerations.
Please note that the object wasn't to see how the F-35 stacked up to the Viper as a dogfight, rather it was to press the limits of the high AoA control laws and then report out the flying qualities in that regime, using various specified maneuvers. The Viper was there to make things dynamic and unscripted. Also, please note "elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs" are also preludes to departing an aircraft, so the evaluation of the effectiveness was how does the anti-spin logic effect high AoA BFM. Of course that's exactly what the JPO statement said.

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against.
Next take a look at the setups:

MISSION EXECUTION
The sortie consisted of standard administration to the Sea Test Range. Ranging exercises were
conducted to familiarize the target aircraft with F-35 visual cues. An offensive capture/tracking task was
completed by the F-35 from 6,000 feet slant range with a 3,000 foot vertical offset at 22,000' MSl and
400 kts. All other testing consisted of traditional BFM setups starting at 22,000' MSL and 440 kts for 6K
and 9K fights and 20,000' MSl at 380 kts for 3K fights. The neutral fights began at approximately
18,000' to 20,000' with no limitations on airspeed or altitude following the check away. The floor was
10,000' MSL. In all, there were seventeen engagements. No loads or other aircraft limits were
exceeded with unrestricted throttle, stick, and rudder inputs.
All I have handy right now are the Block 50/52 performance charts, but they're close enough to the 40 to show that the 3K, 6K and 9K setups are right at the sweet spots of the Viper's performance.

Two 370's Drag Index 70
22,000' MSL 440 KCAS is 0.96M
20,000' MSL 380 KCAS is 0.81M
Note assuming KCAS not KTAS since that's what displays in the HUD and the EM chart below

Click image for larger version.

Name: Block 50 20kft EM DI 50.jpg
Views: 12
Size: 273.6 KB
ID: 238893

Puts things in perspective here. So, the Viper was flying right around it's corner and max instantaneous, while the F-35 was supposed to go elevated AoA and see if the control laws would prevent the plane from departing when performing elevated AoA BFM. The Viper was at a clear advantage all along, but it wasn't there to win, it was there as a visual reference to maneuver against. The whole point was to put the F-35 in a bad position and see what the control laws did. Which is exactly what the JPO said.

While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading.
Turns out the early law are biased towards departure prevention(not a bad thing early in a program), not exactly an Earth shattering discovery, and that there's plenty of margin available to improve performance, again not exactly Earth shattering. At least a sizable subset of these critics aren't old enough to remember that the first wave of FBW A/C went through similar cycle or didn't pay attention/forgot that Super Bug and Raptor did also.

Now with the critic's original argument discredited they take something else out of context...Wash, lather, repeat, the cycle continues. They're always certain their right but curiously avoid making a stand in the face of a rigorous technical argument.


Old LO couldn't let that stand so as usual with anybody who isn't lock step with his views he responded with a Snarky Passive aggressive comment:

LowObservable's Avatar LowObservable LowObservable is online now
Rank 5 Registered User
Join Date
Jul 2007
Location
London
Posts
942
Mkelly "TX" (hmm, a few smug know-it-all posters from TX seem to be cropping up here and there, coincidentally I'm sure) manages to explain the whole report away without once referring to energy maneuverability (until prompted by Andraxxus), which was the report writer's main issue...


Whereupon Mkelly responded with this:

mkellytx mkellytx is online now
Rank 5 Registered User
Join Date
Dec 2009
Posts
26
Quote Originally Posted by LowObservable View Post
Mkelly "TX" (hmm, a few smug know-it-all posters from TX seem to be cropping up here and there, coincidentally I'm sure) manages to explain the whole report away without once referring to energy maneuverability (until prompted by Andraxxus), which was the report writer's main issue...
Innuendo and name calling, that's unbecoming LO.

If by smug you mean to say speaking confidently on a topic I'm not qualified to speak about, then well you decide. Nearly half of my time in uniform was as an aircrew in the 412 TW, prior to that an engineering Master's Degree focused on flight test, flight dynamics and control system design, been a licensed pilot for 22 years and counting, and yes I've written my share of post flight reports, and test plans, and safety plans, and test information sheets, and test cards, even managed to get myself shot at a few times.

So perhaps I've erred, misread and got it wrong. Perhaps I'm just inarticulate, hobbled by my two engineering degrees or could be those pesky NDA's that force me to keep quiet and instead focus on fundamentals like test execution/conduct...As a professional flight tester it does rankle to see test executed as written, data collected as requested and then see that misused to support some (not so) hidden agenda.

I've written my share of DR's and found some really big Cat I's so I appreciate what the writer of that report has done.


Realising that he was now dealing with somebody who might actually know what they are talking about and might even meet at a press conference old LO back pedals with amusing speed...it was just a case of mistaken identity in haste :?

4th July 2015, 12:47 #268 LowObservable's Avatar LowObservable LowObservable is online now
Rank 5 Registered User
Join Date
Jul 2007
Location
London
Posts
942
Mkelly- Apologies for reacting too quickly and negatively. I had been dealing with a troll elsewhere.

However, I think your summary is too dismissive of the report's discussion of energy maneuverability. The point the pilot seemed to be making was that there were two factor in the way of using high AoA in an unscripted scenario: the various limiters and EM, the latter meaning that using high AoA killed a lot of energy quickly and it could not be recovered. More pitch rate would be of some use but not fix the problem.

The other issue - it may be why the established critics are getting heard - is that "less EM than a Block 40" implies the diametric opposite of what program people have been saying loudly and aggressively since they squashed the RAND "baby seals" report in 2008.


Priceless, there was a mild attempt at saving some face with a "What about the EM issue..."

Of course he will be rapidly back to being Passive aggressive to everybody else no doubt! Sorry for the long first post but I hope you all find it amusing!


There are a number of complete retards on that forum. It would be a close call between LO and MSphere to determine the biggest. Whether it's pilot perspectives or manufacturer datasheets, if they don't fit the mindset of the idiot clique, it will descend into a 1 million post retard festival. But then arguably the biggest retards of all on that forum are the moderators for not getting rid of the retards. Mind you, since 80+% of the posters are retards, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. :D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 15:04
by brillo
What if any testing has been done with the navy C variant? Does the extra wing area help with any potential maneuverability short comings?

While the airforce has F22s for ultimate air superiority, the C would have to be at least a credible dog fighter as the super hornet will retire at some point correct?

I've really enjoyed the forum and reading commentary about the plane from informed individuals.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 15:37
by uclass
brillo wrote:What if any testing has been done with the navy C variant? Does the extra wing area help with any potential maneuverability short comings?

While the airforce has F22s for ultimate air superiority, the C would have to be at least a credible dog fighter as the super hornet will retire at some point correct?

I've really enjoyed the forum and reading commentary about the plane from informed individuals.

As I understand it, the F-35 replaces the F-16s, A-10s and F-18C/Ds. The F-18E/F and EA-18G will remain in service until the F/A-XX replaces them.

Image

The C in theory has a lower wing loading but it is restricted to 7.5g and has an inferior TWR. The lack of a gun would also preclude it from gun-fighting without an external pod. This is probably a good indicator of how important gun-fighting actually is in modern air warfare post-1985.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 16:14
by blindpilot
The premises of this conversation are fundamentally broken.

With modern IAD systems, there are no 4th gen highly manueverable aircraft within 50 miles to engage "air to air."

They are at the bottom of the ocean/securing farmland because they CANNOT escape/out maneuver modern SAMs.

But assuming they sneak by somehow ... the first HOBS shot will kill the super 4th gen fighter while it is in the turn trying to bring it's "gun to bear." No one is going to settle into a 20 second turn trying to get the gun pipper on target.

No gun? give me a break. It might be used someday for some things, but we are not in Kansas any more Toto.

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 16:24
by lamoey
brillo wrote:What if any testing has been done with the navy C variant? Does the extra wing area help with any potential maneuverability short comings.


Remember the C has the same trust as the A, but it is heavier and has a larger wing. This means it will have more drag, which is not good fro Air-to-Air Energy Management. The C is also rated at max 7.5G, while the A is rated at 9G, so it goes without saying that it's not going to be any snappier than the A.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 16:48
by zero-one
lamoey wrote:
brillo wrote:What if any testing has been done with the navy C variant? Does the extra wing area help with any potential maneuverability short comings.


Remember the C has the same trust as the A, but it is heavier and has a larger wing. This means it will have more drag, which is not good fro Air-to-Air Energy Management. The C is also rated at max 7.5G, while the A is rated at 9G, so it goes without saying that it's not going to be any snappier than the A.


On the contrary. test pilot Billy Flynn has gone on record by saying that the C is probably the best turner, less Gs perhaps but more turn rate. "Its just carvs when you pull Gs" according to Flynn.

He also said that while the A and B have wonderful high AOA characteristics, the C is simply in a class of it's own.

The C probably has the poorest acceleration and highest energy bleed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it also had the highest sustained and instantainious turn rate when talking about degrees per second, maybe its 50 knots slower than the A but still turning inside them.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 16:50
by zero-one
Double

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 16:50
by brillo
lamoey wrote:
brillo wrote:What if any testing has been done with the navy C variant? Does the extra wing area help with any potential maneuverability short comings.


Remember the C has the same trust as the A, but it is heavier and has a larger wing. This means it will have more drag, which is not good fro Air-to-Air Energy Management. The C is also rated at max 7.5G, while the A is rated at 9G, so it goes without saying that it's not going to be any snappier than the A.


Thanks all for the color. While I recognize the realities of modern air combat and the primary mission profile of the f-35, is there not an ability to take an A variant and create air superiority version through some weight reduction and retooling of the planes accessories? I would think that there is equipment that could be stripped out to improve maneuverability if the plane wasn't carrying bombs.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 17:34
by cantaz
brillo wrote:While I recognize the realities of modern air combat and the primary mission profile of the f-35, is there not an ability to take an A variant and create air superiority version through some weight reduction and retooling of the planes accessories?


There is some talk about the next generation fighter being a growth of the F-35, but that's naturally a rather conservative (IMO unlikely) approach to 6th gen.

There might be weight reduction to be had by an even greater use of composite materials, this time to replace some of the metallic structural components.

I would think that there is equipment that could be stripped out to improve maneuverability if the plane wasn't carrying bombs.


Not a whole lot of options. You can save some structural weight by reducing the load bearing capability of stations 4/8 (internal stations) and 2/10 (midwing pylon, dry) from 2,500lb down to around 1,500lb (2 AMRAAMs plus weight for rack/launcher and future growth), but a lot of the mission system equipment are dual purpose A2A/A2G, so there's little cause to remove them in a dedicated A2A variant.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 18:04
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:
The C probably has the poorest acceleration and highest energy bleed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it also had the highest sustained and instantainious turn rate when talking about degrees per second, maybe its 50 knots slower than the A but still turning inside them.


Lamoey looks spot on - ~5000lbs extra weight with the same engine and a bigger wing. It is likely going to have a worse sustained turn rate due to it not being able to sustain energy as well.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 18:13
by fondueset
Next gen will wax pilotless.
This is part of the rationale funding the f35 - it is a platform for tech evolution.
It's not difficult, given current/pending capabilities, to envision nearly autonomous dogfight drones...

Most of the critiques seem to miss this.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 18:15
by brillo
With the program further advanced and the concept of concurrence, what ability exists to reexamine the planes to add lightness? I'm a car guy so I can think of lots of ways to shave weight that adds up over a bunch of modifications.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 18:36
by XanderCrews
fedaykin wrote:I have registered especially to post a comment in this thread, I am a regular denizen of Key Pub forums and have regularly locked horns with Mr Passive Aggressive LowObservable (a certain journo we all know :D )

Well I just wanted to share something amusing, LO after spending the last few days gleefully lording it over a thread on that forum about this leaked paper has had to eat humble pie and make an apology.

An alleged pilot from the 412 TW (albeit he didn't reveal that in his post) registered there to make some polite corrections to the nonsense being spouted and explain how testing actually works...

... Priceless, there was a mild attempt at saving some face with a "What about the EM issue..."

Of course he will be rapidly back to being Passive aggressive to everybody else no doubt! Sorry for the long first post but I hope you all find it amusing!



That was very fun to read thank you for sharing it with us! :D I recognize you from that forum, you have the Bender Avatar. I'm sure everyone on Keypubs is thrilled at the David Axe piece :roll:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 18:47
by sferrin
fedaykin wrote:I have registered especially to post a comment in this thread, I am a regular denizen of Key Pub forums and have regularly locked horns with Mr Passive Aggressive LowObservable (a certain journo we all know :D )


images.jpg


:D


He's over on Secret Projects right now motor-boating, "but, but, it's NEWS". :lmao:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 18:57
by sferrin
blindpilot wrote:The premises of this conversation are fundamentally broken.

With modern IAD systems, there are no 4th gen highly manueverable aircraft within 50 miles to engage "air to air."

They are at the bottom of the ocean/securing farmland because they CANNOT escape/out maneuver modern SAMs.

But assuming they sneak by somehow ... the first HOBS shot will kill the super 4th gen fighter while it is in the turn trying to bring it's "gun to bear." No one is going to settle into a 20 second turn trying to get the gun pipper on target.

No gun? give me a break. It might be used someday for some things, but we are not in Kansas any more Toto.

MHO
BP


It is amusing that some seem to think the winning "strategy" is to get into gun range with today's 5th gen AAMs.

Bit of a difference between the AIM-9X (don't blink at 0:42) and the AIM-9M shot here:


Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 19:00
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:He's over on Secret Projects right now motor-boating, "but, but, it's NEWS". :lmao:


To add to Cola Psycho/sociological experiment comment, I am amazed that now even the "Defense of the F-35" is being toted as its own vice: "It must be true!! look how defensive and upset the F-35 fanboys are acting!!"

Who would have thought that outright fabrications from an editorial would get people so upset and defensive? So both the accusations, and the counterpoints are considered "telling of guilt" That is one helluva a system there. :doh: -- You are guilty, denying it means you are truly guilty, or else why would you deny it so emphatically eh?? truth hurts"

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 19:01
by citanon
brillo wrote:Thanks all for the color. While I recognize the realities of modern air combat and the primary mission profile of the f-35, is there not an ability to take an A variant and create air superiority version through some weight reduction and retooling of the planes accessories? I would think that there is equipment that could be stripped out to improve maneuverability if the plane wasn't carrying bombs.


Seems to me that's wasting money that could be spent building better missiles, which would give you much more mileage out of all of your platforms.

In theory, with DAS, all the pilot has to do is to select the target and fire. In reality maybe the AIM-9X isn't quite that good. On the other hand it will probably be a heck of a lot easier to widen up the engagement zone and the Pk of the AIM-9X or build the SACM or what ever new BVR and WVR missiles, than to make the F-35A more maneuverable by an amount that's going to matter.

The F22 offers a meaningful increase in performance because it supercruises at Mach 1.8 at 60,000 ft and is maneuverable in that flight regime. There is not an ice cube's chance in hell of giving the F35 that kind of performance.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 19:04
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:He's over on Secret Projects right now motor-boating, "but, but, it's NEWS". :lmao:


To add to Cola Psycho/sociological experiment comment, I am amazed that now even the "Defense of the F-35" is being toted as its own vice: "It must be true!! look how defensive and upset the F-35 fanboys are acting!!"

Who would have thought that outright fabrications from an editorial would get people so upset and defensive? So both the accusations, and the counterpoints are considered "telling of guilt" That is one helluva a system there. :doh: -- You are guilty, denying it means you are truly guilty, or else why would you deny it so emphatically eh?? truth hurts"


Reminds me of putting a witch on trial. "Throw her in the river. If the river spits her out she's guilty. If the river swallows her up it means she's innocent."

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 19:06
by sferrin
citanon wrote:
brillo wrote:Thanks all for the color. While I recognize the realities of modern air combat and the primary mission profile of the f-35, is there not an ability to take an A variant and create air superiority version through some weight reduction and retooling of the planes accessories? I would think that there is equipment that could be stripped out to improve maneuverability if the plane wasn't carrying bombs.


Seems to me that's wasting money that could be spent building better missiles, which would give you much more mileage out of all of your platforms.

In theory, with DAS, all the pilot has to do is to select the target and fire. In reality maybe the AIM-9X isn't quite that good. On the other hand it will probably be a heck of a lot easier to widen up the engagement zone and the Pk of the AIM-9X or build the SACM or what ever new BVR and WVR missiles, than to make the F-35A more maneuverable by an amount that's going to matter.

The F22 offers a meaningful increase in performance because it supercruises at Mach 1.8 at 60,000 ft and is maneuverable in that flight regime. There is not an ice cube's chance in hell of giving the F35 that kind of performance.


AIM-9X is pretty damn good. Block II is even better. Today's WVR missiles (5th gen) are downright scary.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 19:09
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:He's over on Secret Projects right now motor-boating, "but, but, it's NEWS". :lmao:


To add to Cola Psycho/sociological experiment comment, I am amazed that now even the "Defense of the F-35" is being toted as its own vice: "It must be true!! look how defensive and upset the F-35 fanboys are acting!!"

Who would have thought that outright fabrications from an editorial would get people so upset and defensive? So both the accusations, and the counterpoints are considered "telling of guilt" That is one helluva a system there. :doh: -- You are guilty, denying it means you are truly guilty, or else why would you deny it so emphatically eh?? truth hurts"


Reminds me of putting a witch on trial. "Throw her in the river. If the river spits her out she's guilty. If the river swallows her up it means she's innocent."


That is actually a far better analogy. :D Oh and There is also option C: Say nothing at all, and get the Solomon "Where are all the F-35 people?! The Silence is telling!!"

I will say though that I think this is going to be a "turning point" for David Axe, in the same way Aurora was for Sweetman. Of course Axe was already a bitter keyboard kommando who's prime goal is now internet debate and trolling. So lets see what happens. Is there a lower rung?

And since Sweetman lurks here, hi Bill. :poke:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 19:42
by citanon
sferrin wrote:AIM-9X is pretty damn good. Block II is even better. Today's WVR missiles (5th gen) are downright scary.


Has it really gotten to be this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY&t=3m10s good?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 19:46
by spazsinbad
XanderCrews wrote:
fedaykin wrote:I have registered especially to post a comment in this thread, I am a regular denizen of Key Pub forums and have regularly locked horns with Mr Passive Aggressive LowObservable (a certain journo we all know :D )

Well I just wanted to share something amusing, LO after spending the last few days gleefully lording it over a thread on that forum about this leaked paper has had to eat humble pie and make an apology.

An alleged pilot from the 412 TW (albeit he didn't reveal that in his post) registered there to make some polite corrections to the nonsense being spouted and explain how testing actually works...

... Priceless, there was a mild attempt at saving some face with a "What about the EM issue..."

Of course he will be rapidly back to being Passive aggressive to everybody else no doubt! Sorry for the long first post but I hope you all find it amusing!



That was very fun to read thank you for sharing it with us! :D I recognize you from that forum, you have the Bender Avatar. I'm sure everyone on Keypubs is thrilled at the David Axe piece :roll:

DITTO - many thanks 'fedkayin'. Looks as though the SQUIRT is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore (within the signed NDA). We need more of the test pilots to explain stuff - perhaps not for the report cited but just a general overview in what they do - maybe that is asking too much but what happened to aviation journalism? Oh OK it has gone down the proverbial shithole.

Earlier on 'Secret Projects' Matt 'Squirt' Kelly had this to say about the report - on page 19 of this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=294429&hilit=Lightning#p294429

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 20:00
by vilters
Some folks are really funny here.
If you count on better missiles and missile profiles?

Scrap the F-35 and hang a hundred missiles on a C-130.

Hell?? Go full bore, why not? Hang 200 of them under a B-52.....

Dream?
Equip ALL US registered aircraft with them and have a true MASSIVE AIR Force.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 20:02
by aaam
sferrin wrote:
AIM-9X is pretty damn good. Block II is even better. Today's WVR missiles (5th gen) are downright scary.


But sadly Block III, which was to overcome the performance deficiencies of AIM-9X relative to other missiles of its class and was also primarily for the F-35, is being canceled

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 20:05
by uclass
sferrin wrote:
citanon wrote:
brillo wrote:Thanks all for the color. While I recognize the realities of modern air combat and the primary mission profile of the f-35, is there not an ability to take an A variant and create air superiority version through some weight reduction and retooling of the planes accessories? I would think that there is equipment that could be stripped out to improve maneuverability if the plane wasn't carrying bombs.


Seems to me that's wasting money that could be spent building better missiles, which would give you much more mileage out of all of your platforms.

In theory, with DAS, all the pilot has to do is to select the target and fire. In reality maybe the AIM-9X isn't quite that good. On the other hand it will probably be a heck of a lot easier to widen up the engagement zone and the Pk of the AIM-9X or build the SACM or what ever new BVR and WVR missiles, than to make the F-35A more maneuverable by an amount that's going to matter.

The F22 offers a meaningful increase in performance because it supercruises at Mach 1.8 at 60,000 ft and is maneuverable in that flight regime. There is not an ice cube's chance in hell of giving the F35 that kind of performance.


AIM-9X is pretty damn good. Block II is even better. Today's WVR missiles (5th gen) are downright scary.

You should see the ones with 166mm rocket motors. I can't see how a gunfight will ever happen when the absolute worst imaginable case is an IIR missile kill head-on in the far WVR. Again, don't blink at 0:53. :D



aaam wrote:
But sadly Block III, which was to overcome the performance deficiencies of AIM-9X relative to other missiles of its class and was also primarily for the F-35, is being canceled



Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 20:16
by uclass
vilters wrote:Some folks are really funny here.
If you count on better missiles and missile profiles?

Scrap the F-35 and hang a hundred missiles on a C-130.

Hell?? Go full bore, why not? Hang 200 of them under a B-52.....

Dream?
Equip ALL US registered aircraft with them and have a true MASSIVE AIR Force.

Because a C-130 isn't stealthy.

There was however a plan to load BVRAAMs on a B-1R now that you mention it.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 20:16
by sferrin
vilters wrote:Some folks are really funny here.
If you count on better missiles and missile profiles?

Scrap the F-35 and hang a hundred missiles on a C-130.

Hell?? Go full bore, why not? Hang 200 of them under a B-52.....

Dream?
Equip ALL US registered aircraft with them and have a true MASSIVE AIR Force.


Some folks are really funny here. "I'm a gonna find that stealth critter, get past his BVR missiles, past his WVR missiles, make sure he doesn't see me, and then I'm a hit 'im wif ma pop gun."

wabbit.jpg

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 20:21
by sferrin
aaam wrote:
sferrin wrote:
AIM-9X is pretty damn good. Block II is even better. Today's WVR missiles (5th gen) are downright scary.


But sadly Block III, which was to overcome the performance deficiencies of AIM-9X relative to other missiles of its class and was also primarily for the F-35, is being canceled


Meh. As much as I wish they hadn't cancelled it, it was pretty much a WVR missile that could double as a BVR missile. AIM-9X Block II is hardly a POS.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 21:06
by blindpilot
vilters wrote:Some folks are really funny here.
If you count on better missiles and missile profiles?

Scrap the F-35 and hang a hundred missiles on a C-130.

Hell?? Go full bore, why not? Hang 200 of them under a B-52.....

Dream?
Equip ALL US registered aircraft with them and have a true MASSIVE AIR Force.


Vilters. I have no idea what your experience education is. You sound like a 14 year old in mom's basement though, so I'll speak that way until I know better.

No one is "counting on" missiles or really any design parameter. They are taking facts as they are and seeking to respond with answers. Some of those answers are pretty good. (see F-22)

Here's some facts. A modern Integrated air defense system can deny air space even up to and including enemy air space over the enemy capital city if in a couple hundred mile range of the border. Right now the only answer to that is an aggressive offensive attack (SEADS/DEADS) on those systems. Power jamming is risky because of ECCM etc. That's why you see wars starting these days with "cruise missile attacks." Something has to get the telephone poles out of the sky.

Any 4th Gen (non stealthy) aircraft will be dead in minutes if something isn't done about that. This is why you don't see F-16 and F-18 bomb trucks going in ahead of the cruise missiles. THEY WOULD DIE!!!!.

That is not a plan, or counting on or designing anything. It is basic truth in today's air battlespace. The different countries continue to design against and count on different types of responses and counter counter measures. (ie. ?shoot down the cruise missiles? can we do that? Jam the guidance? can we do that? etc.)

But the fundamental truth is you have to deal with the IADS, if you want to fly. Stealth in some measure is not optional at this point. It's the only way in.

Now if you knock down the door, then you can send 4th gen bomb trucks in. But dominating air space still requires a certain level of stealth/sensors to keep the skies clear. That is not done with 4th Gen systems.

The second reality is High Angle Off Boresight weapons. Whatever the state of the art with 9X et al, they do work. You will not be turning and burning for long. It is reality that in 1 v 1, the two combatants may very well kill each other as the most probable outcome. That's ignoring multi ship v multi ship engagements where all those wing men are just looking for the next sucker. That's when knowing where everyone is becomes critical.

There is nothing to count on, if you are dead. As above, most options leave you - DEAD! Answers need to start there. That's what most of this F-35 discussion is about. This is not counting on anything. It is based on real truth in today's world.

BP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 21:47
by gergf-14
Anderdpoohs and life goes on, why turn and burn when you can just burn! :devil:

Yeah baby!

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 21:53
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:Some folks are really funny here.
If you count on better missiles and missile profiles?

Scrap the F-35 and hang a hundred missiles on a C-130.

Hell?? Go full bore, why not? Hang 200 of them under a B-52.....

Dream?
Equip ALL US registered aircraft with them and have a true MASSIVE AIR Force.


Its better than your hand grenade equipped piper cubs. :D

How to make a Vilters post:

1. Find an exception
2. make it the new "rule"
3. Take the rule to the extreme
4. Add snark and declare

Let me try:

1. Machine guns have shot down airplanes
2. Machine guns are superior to airplanes
3. Equip with nothing but Machine guns
4. "Why don't we just arm every man, woman, and child in the country with a machine gun, and make Belgium the worlds most MASSIVE air defense"

perfect.

Your Straw men getting bigger every time. Bless your heart, Vilters, bless your heart

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 21:55
by spazsinbad
I no I speke funni but 'Anderdpoohs'? Wot? viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=294517&hilit=Anderdpoohs#p294517

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 22:33
by thomonkey
i have no doubt that an f16 would never get to the merge against an f35, however I was under the assumption that even if they did get to the merge, the f35 would be on equal footing with a combat configured f16. The report seems to imply that the f35 was simply being tested for high aoa and the control laws were not optimized at all. However, the DOD comes out with a response that just says "meh, f35 is not a dog fighter." I mean, I agree with everyone's assessment, but why did the DOD not say what every knowledgeable person in this sub is saying?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 23:32
by spazsinbad
Even LO over at 'secretprogeny' quotes this: "Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter...." and does not seem to concede that 'the OTHERS' need to be combat configured on equal terms with the F-35 - with all their magic external pods attached etc. LO quote on SecProj here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg253587

FlightGlobal old quote 'quoted' here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-382078/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 23:34
by XanderCrews
thomonkey wrote:i have no doubt that an f16 would never get to the merge against an f35, however I was under the assumption that even if they did get to the merge, the f35 would be on equal footing with a combat configured f16. The report seems to imply that the f35 was simply being tested for high aoa and the control laws were not optimized at all. However, the DOD comes out with a response that just says "meh, f35 is not a dog fighter." I mean, I agree with everyone's assessment, but why did the DOD not say what every knowledgeable person in this sub is saying?


I see your point 100 percent. It wouldn't be the first time the PR got screwed up. Thats a lame answer I know but that is the first that comes to mind speaking of which--

I think there was very much a "knee jerk" response from the JPO, that in hindsight could have been worded much better but here we are. More details have emerged that probably would have been of better use than what they used in that initial statement. trying to paint the idea of dogfighting as unneeded was not really the way to go. Respecting the need for dogfighting (even though as you point out, its moot in most ways) and responding was probably a smarter play. So they are "right" and very much so but given the nature of the controversy should have been more respectful of the issue, and it didn't alleviate any fears for the general public. In their defense, that was before Axe published exactly what he had and in some ways there is no such thing as a perfect response. Their words were used for what they said, and "what they didn't say" by whoever wanted to interpret the tea leaves to suit the agenda.

Other than that though :shrug: If they are hiring, I'll gladly apply.

I am hoping with time, we get people who will be interviewed from the JPO that will explain what they mean by that statement, and hopefully in an environment with time to take questions and a pilot to tell us more and lend credibility.

This could be a very long running "controversy" with lots of "rounds" to be fought. The internet on both sides has expended its initial allotments of ammunition, the issue for the detractors is that this story is very much a "one shot deal" from Axe but the JPO has an entire force of actual professionals that can respond to this for literally years to come. In that regard this story won't be a story in a month. And its IMHO already looking the people in the know are explaining what the report means, this will only improve and increase with time. Most of the major publications are responding with a "look at this controversy" rather than siding with Axe.

This whole pattern is starting to get extremely familiar. blogger says something, internet goes wild, professionals respond, controversy either over, degraded, or subsided and forgotten until it happens again. Stand by for the same thing again in a couple months.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 01:00
by popcorn
brillo wrote:
lamoey wrote:
brillo wrote:What if any testing has been done with the navy C variant? Does the extra wing area help with any potential maneuverability short comings.


Remember the C has the same trust as the A, but it is heavier and has a larger wing. This means it will have more drag, which is not good fro Air-to-Air Energy Management. The C is also rated at max 7.5G, while the A is rated at 9G, so it goes without saying that it's not going to be any snappier than the A.


Thanks all for the color. While I recognize the realities of modern air combat and the primary mission profile of the f-35, is there not an ability to take an A variant and create air superiority version through some weight reduction and retooling of the planes accessories? I would think that there is equipment that could be stripped out to improve maneuverability if the plane wasn't carrying bombs.

The AF has focused to enhance the jet in the A2A role via improvements in it's sensor capabilities and more lethal missiles. Down the road maybe even DEW. Not maneuverahility to improve dogfighting.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 01:05
by popcorn
brillo wrote:With the program further advanced and the concept of concurrence, what ability exists to reexamine the planes to add lightness? I'm a car guy so I can think of lots of ways to shave weight that adds up over a bunch of modifications.

A lot of the weight savings were achieved with SWAT early on in the program. No doubt they are stoll on the lookout for any potential weight savers.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 03:38
by squirl
...there were multiple occasions where it would have been tactically sound to accept excessive energy loss in order to achieve a fleeting WEZ.
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a way to quantify energy versus nose position to inform discussions such as these? 8)

I can guarantee that the debrief left important analysis on the table because frankly, no organization has ever successfully captured that energy relationship. :2c:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 07:26
by geforcerfx
It amazes me how some people still hold issue with this, especially since the report was released. The test was for something completely different then what people are acting like it was, and how you can draw a complete conclusion about a fighters WVR performance from a 5 page pilot write up that's about a AOA test to collect data for the software engineering team is beyond me. I personally never looked at the F-35 as a spectacular dog fighter on the kinematic front, but it has a lot of growth potential there. Where is keeps it's edge is in the SA, stealth, and missile tech it brings to the fight. I look at any merge between 5th/4++ gen fighters as a death trap for both sides, and none of the aircraft in those generations are focused on that type of combat. BVR has taken over, sensor and missile technology has advanced to the point that it makes no sense to put the aircraft right next to one another. Pilots need time to think and BVR gives them that time. Any 5th gen aircraft from any country will hold a large advantage against a 4th gen in the BVR arena. If people wanna hold issue with BVR taking over they can cry all they want, but its been proven since the end of Vietnam to be a effective way of obtaining air superiority, and the technology that allows BVR combat to be effective has tripled in capability in the last 15 years alone. I guess to me it boils down too the data they were given gives them little to no usable data to make any factual conclusions about the F-35 WVR performance, the reasoning has already been stated by many on this thread so I am not going to repeat it all.

Rambling off

PS. whoever works PR should be fired on Monday.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 09:18
by spazsinbad
Who said McCain is anti-F-35? Perhaps pro-A-10 - this is succinctly good.
Blog: F-16 beat F-35 Lightning II in air combat test
01 Jul 2015 Travis J. Tritten , Stars and Stripes

"...The Senate has proposed an additional $1 billion for the program to buy six more F-35s as part of next year’s defense budget. The proposal was crafted and supported by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who chairs the Armed Services Committee.

“Obviously, reports like these are not encouraging, but we recognize it represents a single data point with an early model F-35 in what will be an extensive operational testing program,” McCain spokesman Dustin Walker wrote in an email to Stars and Stripes. “We hope the Air Force will use the results of ongoing testing to ensure the F-35 will dominate in real-world combat scenarios.”"

JPG: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/blog-f-1 ... -1.355799#

Source: http://www.stripes.com/news/us/blog-f-1 ... t-1.355799

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 10:49
by popcorn
Wow! McCain continues to surprise. :D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 11:10
by mmosberg
Back on topic, to the leaked report.

How is it possible that the Viper with two "bags" maintained energy better than the JSF and outperformed it in BFMs? Taking into consideration thrust to weight ratio, drag and the limited Gs allowed for the Viper in the mentioned setup? I dont get it......

Would appreciate if someone took their time to explain this for a Norwegian newbie (long time reader) just being above average interested in air warfare and my country`s new fighter airplane.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 11:49
by mk82
mmosberg wrote:Back on topic, to the leaked report.

How is it possible that the Viper with two "bags" maintained energy better than the JSF and outperformed it in BFMs? Taking into consideration thrust to weight ratio and the limited Gs allowed for the Viper in the mentioned setup? I dont get it......

Would appreciate if someone took their time to explain this for a Norwegian newbie (long time reader) just being above average interested in air warfare and my country`s new fighter airplane.


Easy, what will you think will happen if you fly a F35A deliberately at high AOA against a Viper manoeuvring at optimal AOA? The F35A sure won't be in a good place EM wise as noted succinctly in the report. Read the thread and read the report (link is in this thread) and try to get some context in which the flight test was done. Two other things, the AF 2 flight control software was not an optimised version and we don't know how much fuel the F35A was carrying (thrust to weight ratio is important too).

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 11:53
by uclass
mmosberg wrote:Back on topic, to the leaked report.

How is it possible that the Viper with two "bags" maintained energy better than the JSF and outperformed it in BFMs? Taking into consideration thrust to weight ratio, drag and the limited Gs allowed for the Viper in the mentioned setup? I dont get it......

Would appreciate if someone took their time to explain this for a Norwegian newbie (long time reader) just being above average interested in air warfare and my country`s new fighter airplane.

The F-35 still has some restrictions on its flight envelope in terms of g and AoA because it hasn't finished testing. The whole point of tests like this one and others are to slowly push back those restrictions. This one in particular focused on forcing the F-35 with g restrictions to take on an F-16 in the F-16's optimal flight regime wrt to ITR so that it was forced to use high AoAs to counter. I.e. it was a test designed specifically so that the F-35 would 'lose'. In doing so they found that there is scope to push back the current AoA limits.

This was not a test of operational capabilities, it was a development test focused on one thing, AoA limits. The only valid conclusion was that AoA limits can be raised.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 11:55
by spazsinbad
This is where it all starts 'mmosberg': viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=293887&hilit=boring#p293887

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 14:25
by MD
spazsinbad wrote:Who said McCain is anti-F-35? Perhaps pro-A-10 - this is succinctly good.


McCain HAS to play both sides of the fence here. The F-35 is the only thing keeping Luke AFB open right now, it has no other mission other than F-16, and now F-35, FTU.

At the same time, McCain has to keep southern AZ happy with DM and the A-10.

In short, he has a lot of political pandering for votes to do....

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 15:12
by Gums
Salute!



PLZ stop this "qouting" an entire post from a page before or post before. Sheesh. Cut and paste or just reference the other post. We prolly already read it.


++++++++

The gee is over sold. The AoA is over sold.

A great Gee limit is used for your "break turn", which is prolly defensive. Or it could be for a snap shot, not a tracking solution. I saw the enema high AoA few times in my Viper. Mainly at the top of a vertical scissors. Otherwise, we could wear the other guy down if we could handle the 4 or 5 gees for a minute or two or three.

The Viper pulled 9 gees at or below 15 degrees AoA. IAS would be 360 kt or so. The 25 deg AoA limit was at one gee!!! So best fight was down around 20 deg AoA or so. Of course, at max AoA we still had a cosmic roll rate compared to others.

Not to completely poo poo gees and AoA, but a rough gauge can be had by using this equation and then backing in other stuff to get turn rate. gee=v^2/r You can then use the "r" and the "vee" to get turn rate in radians. So look at the numbers I presented for those old Vipers and it's impressive. These equations are for a 90 degree bank, but you can tilt the plane of turn and adjust.

Problem these days is not the gun but the new missiles. They are not even close to the poor ones we had in the 60's. Better launch envelope, better range, better seekers, better cockpit procedures, better, better, better. Just look at Slammer stats.

Gums opines....

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 15:21
by uclass
Gums wrote:Salute!

@uclas et al

PLZ stop this "qouting" an entire post from a page before or post before. Sheesh. Cut and paste or just reference the other post. We prolly already read it.


++++++++

The gee is over sold. The AoA is over sold.

A great Gee limit is used for your "break turn", which is prolly defensive. Or it could be for a snap shot, not a tracking solution. I saw the enema high AoA few times in my Viper. Mainly at the top of a vertical scissors. Otherwise, we could wear the other guy down if we could handle the 4 or 5 gees for a minute or two or three.

The Viper pulled 9 gees at or below 15 degrees AoA. IAS would be 360 kt or so. The 25 deg AoA limit was at one gee!!! So best fight was down around 20 deg AoA or so. Of course, at max AoA we still had a cosmic roll rate compared to others.

Not to completely poo poo gees and AoA, but a rough gauge can be had by using this equation and then backing in other stuff to get turn rate. gee=v^2 * r You can then use the "r" and the "vee" to get turn rate in radians. So look at the numbers I presented for those old Vipers and it's impressive. These equations are for a 90 degree bank, but you can tilt the plane of turn and adjust.

Problem these days is not the gun but the new missiles. They are not even close to the poor ones we had in the 60's. Better launch envelope, better range, better seekers, better cockpit procedures, better, better, better. Just look at Slammer stats.

Gums opines....

a = v^2/r, a/9.80665 = g force, v/r = radians/s

a (m/s^2)
v (m/s)
g (m/s^2)
r (m)
g force (ratio)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 15:44
by Gums
Salute!

TNX for correction, uclas.

Don't know how I got the rough equation porked.

The amazing thing is to use the Viper 9 gee and 360 knot IAS numbers for sea level and see the turn radius!!!

Gums still recovering from 4th ....

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 16:44
by fedaykin
XanderCrews wrote:
fedaykin wrote:I have registered especially to post a comment in this thread, I am a regular denizen of Key Pub forums and have regularly locked horns with Mr Passive Aggressive LowObservable (a certain journo we all know :D )

Well I just wanted to share something amusing, LO after spending the last few days gleefully lording it over a thread on that forum about this leaked paper has had to eat humble pie and make an apology.

An alleged pilot from the 412 TW (albeit he didn't reveal that in his post) registered there to make some polite corrections to the nonsense being spouted and explain how testing actually works...

... Priceless, there was a mild attempt at saving some face with a "What about the EM issue..."

Of course he will be rapidly back to being Passive aggressive to everybody else no doubt! Sorry for the long first post but I hope you all find it amusing!



That was very fun to read thank you for sharing it with us! :D I recognize you from that forum, you have the Bender Avatar. I'm sure everyone on Keypubs is thrilled at the David Axe piece :roll:


Yep thats me, I would slightly disagree with the person who suggested that 80% of Key Pubs members are retards. There are still some solid posters and occasional good debate but I have been reducing my post count as it is not what it used to be. Unfortunately the blame lies with their mods who frankly let a few too many Oxygen thieves dominate debates or cause trouble, JSR being a particular one. Whilst decent good posters have in recent years been censored or even banned for alleged disruptive behaviour. I have been finding it increasingly tiresome.

I had my own run in with the MODS about a year ago when I had an argument in a thread with another member about the safety of the MB MK16 ejector seat after a fatal incident with a Red Arrow. Said other member was saying that if strapped in there was no risk of any kind of injury if you have to use it zero zero. I pointed out that was fundamentally impossible there is always risk of injury using an ejection seat. Said other member rudely said I was wrong because he serviced said seats for the French Airforce. I pointed out that as he was an anonymous member of a forum he could be the King of Belgium for all I know. About two weeks later out of the blue I get a warning and mark on my account from the mods for being disrespectful to the dead pilot. I tried to explain that I was not talking about the pilot and was purely correcting a nonsensical viewpoint and anonymous people using the "I am an expert so there..." debating tactic is fairly poor. Said mod then threatened a full ban :bang:

Then there is LO who should've been banned long ago for his pretty vile behaviour to anybody who doesn't share his views. The irony being and I have pointed this out to him before I have my concerns and criticisms when it comes to the F-35 program but on the whole I am glass half full on the matter. As far as I am concerned as a sensor shooter it will be a quantum leap for the capabilities of the RAF and RN.

It is a pity and I will for the moment carry on posting at Key Pub but I do miss the atmosphere of about ten years ago where some really interesting debates were held.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 17:25
by KamenRiderBlade
Bill Sweetman; Anti-JSF / military group think, it's what is in the koolaid.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 18:48
by spazsinbad
'MD' I'm not in America nor am I a keen follower of US politics - however I make the point: even though McCain may be speaking out of the two sides of his gob on various matters - he is not speaking only out of one side, the one against the F-35, as often he has been portrayed and I will guess, will be portrayed. Politicians are probably (in the Western world anyway) very similar, for reasons we know, but do not particularly always like - however McCain is now in a very responsible position so he also needs to be careful with his political speech.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 18:49
by zero-one
I think what most people are disappointed on is not the notion that the F-35 is toast in a phone booth. Because, a) I still think it can hold it's own. b.) it may seldomly get to that point anyway.

But the concern is, compared to other fighters, the F-35 seems to be at the low end of the performance hierarchy.
Thats how most people see it these days, a super stealthy, super smart, super hi-tech low performance fighter.

I mean do we really want it to be known for that.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 18:51
by spazsinbad
'fedaykin' said above: "...Then there is LO who should've been banned long ago for his pretty vile behaviour to anybody who doesn't share his views...." [on keypubs]

LO is a sight to behold on pPrune.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 20:28
by MD
spazsinbad wrote:'MD' I'm not in America nor am I a keen follower of US politics - however I make the point: even though McCain may be speaking out of the two sides of his gob on various matters - he is not speaking only out of one side, the one against the F-35, as often he has been portrayed and I will guess, will be portrayed. Politicians are probably (in the Western world anyway) very similar, for reasons we know, but do not particularly always like - however McCain is now in a very responsible position so he also needs to be careful with his political speech.


Agreed sir. For not being in America or a follower of US politics, you do observe very correctly what is going on here with these things.

The whole McCain issue is an interesting thing. Because politicians in the State of Arizona are caught between the F-35 and A-10 "rock and hard place". Being that the F-35 is the future of Luke AFB in Phoenix, and Yuma MCAS in Yuma; yet the loss of the A-10 to Davis-Monthan in Tucson (which, along with the Arizona ANG in Tucson were both bypassed for F-35 operations), would be a large political and economic hit to that area (which is their problem, in my opinion, not the DODs or federal government's, but I digress). So McCain and the rest of the cronies are almost having to answer to two masters. But in AZ politics, all the power (and hence, most of the votes and money) is in the Phoenix area, Tucson and everywhere else have always been the second-place younger brothers. Which is why McCain is talking the F-35 talk in one breath.....supporting Luke AFB and Yuma MCAS....F-35 is a great aircraft to have!! Then, he goes down to Tucson, and speaks for the A-10, and that nothing else can do the job of CAS as well, and the F-35 won't replace it. Blah Blah. The whole thing he is doing would be comedy if it weren't so serious in many ways. Yet, no one around here in AZ, on either side of the issue, will call him out for his BS on this.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 21:04
by sferrin
zero-one wrote:I think what most people are disappointed on is not the notion that the F-35 is toast in a phone booth. Because, a) I still think it can hold it's own. b.) it may seldomly get to that point anyway.

But the concern is, compared to other fighters, the F-35 seems to be at the low end of the performance hierarchy.
Thats how most people see it these days, a super stealthy, super smart, super hi-tech low performance fighter.

I mean do we really want it to be known for that.


Would you rather have the F-15s 100+-to-0 kill record or be able to do a "Cobra" at air shows like the Flanker? :doh:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 21:05
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:'fedaykin' said above: "...Then there is LO who should've been banned long ago for his pretty vile behaviour to anybody who doesn't share his views...." [on keypubs]

LO is a sight to behold on pPrune.


He's pretty much the Grand Poobah of the Bitter Brit Tea Society over there. They came up with the moniker "Dave" in one of their treehouse meetings to express their displeasure of the F-35. Real bunch of grown ups in that bunch.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 23:38
by XanderCrews
mmosberg wrote:Back on topic, to the leaked report.

How is it possible that the Viper with two "bags" maintained energy better than the JSF and outperformed it in BFMs? Taking into consideration thrust to weight ratio, drag and the limited Gs allowed for the Viper in the mentioned setup? I dont get it......

Would appreciate if someone took their time to explain this for a Norwegian newbie (long time reader) just being above average interested in air warfare and my country`s new fighter airplane.


Welcome aboard!

Cliff's notes

- Aviation week runs a story about the F-35 going against the F-16 in BFM, results not really mentioned
- Test pilots discuss opening up the software as it is "clamped" too tight, likely for safety sake as F-35 is still in test
- Norwegian blogger writes very helpful explanations about F-35 in comparison to F-16, and the future.
- about 2 months later David Axe, a noted F-35 critic claims he has a 5 page report that says the F-35 can't dogfight and posts an article (though not the report itself) on his blog
- Many are skeptical, especially as mulitple pilots (LM, and military, including international) have likened the F-35s agility to an F-16/F-18, aircraft that many of the pilots flying F-35s now came from.
- The internet goes wild, mostly blogs though and the report is not touched by more reputable publishers and authors.
- The JPO issues a rather dubious statement, (released by LM) that everyone seems to read differently, promises to find who leaked the report, as its a very serious breach of protocol
- Under pressure, Axe releases the original report his article is based on. more follow up articles appear on his blog.
- Many people with flight and test experience, are able to see that the test was a highly specific one and is not an indicator of the F-35s overall ability to dogfight, it was to test flight control laws at AoA. This is stated on the first page of the report in fact.
- Those same people are now writing their own articles, posts, and blogs that contradict Axes conclusions.
- It appears the report was not a "decisive" judgement on the F-35s agility.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 23:41
by spazsinbad
:notworthy: Nice summation zanadu - thanks. :applause:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 00:57
by popcorn
sferrin wrote:
zero-one wrote:I think what most people are disappointed on is not the notion that the F-35 is toast in a phone booth. Because, a) I still think it can hold it's own. b.) it may seldomly get to that point anyway.

But the concern is, compared to other fighters, the F-35 seems to be at the low end of the performance hierarchy.
Thats how most people see it these days, a super stealthy, super smart, super hi-tech low performance fighter.

I mean do we really want it to be known for that.


Would you rather have the F-15s 100+-to-0 kill record or be able to do a "Cobra" at air shows like the Flanker? :doh:

Agreed. Executing the mission and coming home to talk about it beats style points every day of the week. As for the opinions of the unwashed masses, who cares? It's not a popilarity contest. The pros know the real scoop on the jet and so do the governments who foot the bill.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 01:30
by luke_sandoz
Reminds me of the F4F Wildcat. It was "outperformed" by Japanese Zeros that could out turn and had a better gun.

Somehow the far inferior dog fighter kicked the Zeros but.

Because tactics matter and you fight to your strengths.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 01:59
by borg
sferrin wrote:
zero-one wrote:I think what most people are disappointed on is not the notion that the F-35 is toast in a phone booth. Because, a) I still think it can hold it's own. b.) it may seldomly get to that point anyway.

But the concern is, compared to other fighters, the F-35 seems to be at the low end of the performance hierarchy.
Thats how most people see it these days, a super stealthy, super smart, super hi-tech low performance fighter.

I mean do we really want it to be known for that.


Would you rather have the F-15s 100+-to-0 kill record or be able to do a "Cobra" at air shows like the Flanker? :doh:


You are aware that this sort of statements has very little to do With Aircraft EM and most to do With SA and force multipliers.
I think it was Gums here whom stated something the Iraq'ies didn't have squat sh*t to throw after us, for all intense and purpose, they flew constantly in a "sandstorm" and had no SA whatsoever.

So i fail to see what this100+ to 0 kills has to do With Cobra, Flankers and rah rah?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 02:13
by tincansailor
Hello all. Wishing all Americans a happy 4th of July weekend, and best wishes to all others. This is my first posting to the F-35 Forum. As my handle implies I was a Tin Can Sailor not an aviator, so my understanding of military aircraft is only that of an aviation buff, so please go easy on me.

I became interested in the F-35 last year because of the vehemence of both the reporting and commenting about it. It seemed to have the hostile tone usually found when discussing partisan politics, not what should be objective reporting about a defense issue. The lead off of every story was always "The problem plagued, most expensive, $1 Trillion defense program in history". It always annoys me to see the price tag lead off every space related story, (as if money was ever spent in space, It's all spent on earth supporting jobs and technology.)

I figured the F-35 had to be ether the most worthless, blotted defense boondoggle in history or the most maligned program ever. Stories that quote Eisenhower's military industrial complex speech always make me suspicious because what he was trying to say was so misunderstood, and subject to demagoguery. We spend less then 1/3 of what we spent in GDP on national defense today then when IKE was president.

This Forums been very helpful to me in learning about the F-35's problems and promises. If you can't see how revolutionary it is then your thinking is really stuck in the Vietnam War. I think my head will explode if I read one more account of what a mistake it was to not include a gun on the F-4D. Do you think there's a few lessons from the wars of the last 40 years we need to learn? Does Pierre Sprey think if we have to bomb Iran we'll be facing MIG-17's?

Having said that I think as unlikely as a merge might be its important the F-35 be able to hold it's own. In the public mind it's still a Top Gun world of turn and burn air combat. (There's a remake in the works. I guess F-18F's.) Yes I understand this was about AOA testing, and not a real dogfight, but this story has legs, or wings in the public mind. If we want to get full rate production in the next few years PR matters. I'm surprised LM, and the DOD came out with such a weak response. When people are laughing at you, you need to respond with something better then "Well we never told you it would be a good dogfighter."

These tests were in January, does anyone think the flight software's been tweaked by now? Will we have to wait for the 3I Software for any F-35A's to show up at Red Flag? They did talk about 4 on 4 combats with all going to the F-35's. Could they talk them up in some new press releases? The story about Green Flag was very positive. The F-22 has never been in a real dogfight but has a reputation for killing F-15's like baby Seals, when will the F-35 get the chance to do the same thing? What opportunities over the next few months do any of you think the F-35 will get to show it's worth in AtoA combat?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 02:58
by charlielima223
@ tincansailor
good on you. Like you I have no aviation, engineering, or technical experience. I have mud to mud in my blood but like you I am an aviation buff. I learned plenty here.

In the public mind it's still a Top Gun world of turn and burn air combat.


Unfortunately that is true. The biggest problem is trying to make the public understand the trend that most everyone (here and) in the military can see coming. F-22s come to mind. Remember that story a few years ago about German Typhoons with F-22 markings on the nose? Then you have that video about the F-22 on the Rafale's HUD? So many see that and then point to it as absolute irrefutable proof. Fewer understand the reason behind such things. In both those instances both the Rafale and Typhoon were purposely set up for WVR engagements. Combining a high amount of SA with LO tactics and designs leads to some very lopsided victories, again look at the F-22. If the USAF could show that the "turn and burn" is just a very small part and that the trend is towards LO combined with high SA, then they would have a better understanding to the madness. This doesn't mean however that pilots will not train and become proficient in basic BFM. There is a reason why the USN still flies F-5s out of Fallon NAS. There is a reason why the USAF have F-16s in their aggressor squadrons.

I'm surprised LM, and the DOD came out with such a weak response. When people are laughing at you, you need to respond with something better then "Well we never told you it would be a good dogfighter."


Too true. A pretty weak response. I think they were putting faith in the public in trying to understand to reason behind that 5 page report, unfortunately their faith didn't pay off. A better response is what many here have been already saying, "this was a test to evaluate our flight control laws at high AoAs and this should not be taken as definitive evidence one way or the other".

What opportunities over the next few months do any of you think the F-35 will get to show it's worth in AtoA combat?


I can't wait the USMC will be able to do with their F-35Bs.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 03:19
by popcorn
Welcome tincansailor.
WVR combat today would be very different from how it's portrayed in the movies. Enjoying the situational awareness advantage so you know exsctly where Blue and Red are and -most importantly - sharing the common tactical picture with your comrades is paramount.

Assume a courageous Red pilot who somehow survives the BVR phase with AMRAAMs out of the blue flying in his face. No small feat and he even manages to close to WVR in the hopes of employing supposedly superior dogfighing abilities, only to be turned into a fireball... not by the F-35 he was focused on but by another F-35 he was never even aware of. The F-35s in the fight had 360-deg shared awareness of the potential threat and dealt with it in a collaborative fashion.

1v1 is a dumb way to fight when you can bring some of your friends along to help out.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 03:48
by mrigdon
charlielima223 wrote:
In the public mind it's still a Top Gun world of turn and burn air combat.


Unfortunately that is true. The biggest problem is trying to make the public understand the trend that most everyone (here and) in the military can see coming.


Does the public even care? What does that even mean? Looking at the various handles on this website, even throwing in Kinja over on FA and other sites, what percentage of the public is really paying attention? Is it more than five percent? I'd guess more like one or two percent. Even that seems high. The United States now has a population of 300 million. One percent would be 3 million people. Are 3 million people really reading F-16.net, Foxtrot Alpha, and War is Boring? I doubt it. The LM and DOD are really only writing press releases for people who read David Axe. Maybe that's why they didn't care (I'm wondering if someone at LM was just punking these guys).

I seriously doubt the general public remembers Top Gun (other than the volleyball scene) or anything about air combat in Vietnam (how many movies about pilots flying over Vietnam were ever made? One?). They're pretty content to let the military do what the military wants to do. The only members of the public who get upset seem to be people around air force bases who may see their squadrons shut down. But that will only affect one House member and the two Senators. And the Senators can probably blow off one district over this sort of thing.

The newest budget funds F-35s above and beyond what the Pentagon requested. The politicians don't seem to have any issues with spending the money, at least the ones who count, the ones on committees. I'm sure in those districts that are losing A-10 squadrons, the David Axe article got some play, but has it made it into the Washington Post or the New York Times? Do the people making the actual decisions care? They already know about this. They knew when they were making the budget and they put in more money.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 05:46
by zero-one
sferrin wrote:
zero-one wrote:I think what most people are disappointed on is not the notion that the F-35 is toast in a phone booth. Because, a) I still think it can hold it's own. b.) it may seldomly get to that point anyway.

But the concern is, compared to other fighters, the F-35 seems to be at the low end of the performance hierarchy.
Thats how most people see it these days, a super stealthy, super smart, super hi-tech low performance fighter.

I mean do we really want it to be known for that.


Would you rather have the F-15s 100+-to-0 kill record or be able to do a "Cobra" at air shows like the Flanker? :doh:


Well first off, a Cobra is done at low energy states. Secondly, even the American officer at Redflag 2008 said that the Su-30MKI is a little better than the F-15. So yeah I would rather be in a Flanker if the Eagle is the only other option.

Point is, I wasn't comapring who would win a fight, the F-35 can still win due to SA superiority. But right now, if the JPO fails to address the performance issue, the F-35 will have the reputation of being at the low end of the performance scale.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 06:16
by mrigdon
zero-one wrote:Secondly, even the American officer at Redflag 2008 said that the Su-30MKI is a little better than the F-15. So yeah I would rather be in a Flanker if the Eagle is the only other option.


You're assuming the Su-30MKI won't fall out of the sky. Recent news stories aren't very encouraging on that front.

You're also going back to 2008, when the Su-30MKI had brand new avionics. The first operational F-15C with an AN/APG-63v3 AESA radar didn't take flight until 2010. Do you think the American officer would still have the same opinion today?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 06:27
by Corsair1963
MD wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Who said McCain is anti-F-35? Perhaps pro-A-10 - this is succinctly good.


McCain HAS to play both sides of the fence here. The F-35 is the only thing keeping Luke AFB open right now, it has no other mission other than F-16, and now F-35, FTU.

At the same time, McCain has to keep southern AZ happy with DM and the A-10.

In short, he has a lot of political pandering for votes to do....


McCain is a politician pure and simple! I've talked with him a number of times over the years. He is not a bad man and I have little doubt he loves the country. Yet, once you become part of the political machine. You see everything from a different perspective... :?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 06:47
by zero-one
mrigdon wrote:
zero-one wrote:Secondly, even the American officer at Redflag 2008 said that the Su-30MKI is a little better than the F-15. So yeah I would rather be in a Flanker if the Eagle is the only other option.


You're assuming the Su-30MKI won't fall out of the sky. Recent news stories aren't very encouraging on that front.

You're also going back to 2008, when the Su-30MKI had brand new avionics. The first operational F-15C with an AN/APG-63v3 AESA radar didn't take flight until 2010. Do you think the American officer would still have the same opinion today?


Don't get me wrong I'm a true blue Eagle fan. With the right pilot it will have chances against any Flanker. The redflag comment was mostly about performance anyway. As was all my other comments

I wasn't trying to judge who would win as performance is not the sole or even the most important deciding factor in that.

I was simply comapring performance in general terms.

The Eagle is undoubtedly a high performance platform, but according to the Redflag video, the MKI is generally a little better.
As for the F-35, im not saying it would loose a dogfight. But simply, if the JPO fails to address this issue correctly, then the F-35 may suffer the reputation of being a low end fighter in terms of aerodynamic performance.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 07:00
by spazsinbad
Over on the 19th page of this thread there is a PDF 'Doc My Neck Hurts'. Well it still hurts and now with an added extra page from USN Flight Safety APPROACH Magazine about the whys and wherefores.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 10:24
by vilters
in all honesty, the F-35 fans are all so full of the upgraded and unparlelled SA and missiles to win fights.
That is OK for now, no problem with that.

But in the future? When more airplanes with get improved SA? And improved missiles?

Then you are left with a heavy F-35, with small wings, that has SA but no sustained turning energy.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 10:40
by spazsinbad
Oh 'vilters' - at the same time unnamed aircraft are upgraded with wotnots then so will the F-35s - Blocks and Blocks and Blocks of 'em upgrades - avionics/weapons/engines - you name it - I'll say it.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 11:03
by bring_it_on
vilters wrote:in all honesty, the F-35 fans are all so full of the upgraded and unparlelled SA and missiles to win fights.
That is OK for now, no problem with that.

But in the future? When more airplanes with get improved SA? And improved missiles?

Then you are left with a heavy F-35, with small wings, that has SA but no sustained turning energy.


If all its competitors get HMD's at par with its, and get 360 degrees DAS and are able to deploy their IR weapons using it, how exactly would some extra sustained or instantaneous turning ability tilt the odds heavily in the F-35's favor???

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 11:36
by uclass
Gums wrote:Salute!

TNX for correction, uclas.

Don't know how I got the rough equation porked.

The amazing thing is to use the Viper 9 gee and 360 knot IAS numbers for sea level and see the turn radius!!!

Gums still recovering from 4th ....

No probs, I figured it was a typo.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 11:43
by popcorn
A Cessna with AESA, EOTS, DAS, missiles would be a game-changer. :D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 12:35
by XanderCrews
bring_it_on wrote:
vilters wrote:in all honesty, the F-35 fans are all so full of the upgraded and unparlelled SA and missiles to win fights.
That is OK for now, no problem with that.

But in the future? When more airplanes with get improved SA? And improved missiles?

Then you are left with a heavy F-35, with small wings, that has SA but no sustained turning energy.


If all its competitors get HMD's at par with its, and get 360 degrees DAS and are able to deploy their IR weapons using it, how exactly would some extra sustained or instantaneous turning ability tilt the odds heavily in the F-35's favor???


Exactly.

What amount of kinematics can move you beyond the speed of light so things like enemy EODAS can't lock Vilters?

This is why dogfights are best avoided. The playing field is level whether you are an ace or a dud, an F-22 or an F-4. Good EM is not enough

Maybe you can share with the rest of us what airplane would be ideal in the future dogfight you describe.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 13:42
by charlielima223
XanderCrews wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:
vilters wrote:in all honesty, the F-35 fans are all so full of the upgraded and unparlelled SA and missiles to win fights.
That is OK for now, no problem with that.

But in the future? When more airplanes with get improved SA? And improved missiles?

Then you are left with a heavy F-35, with small wings, that has SA but no sustained turning energy.


If all its competitors get HMD's at par with its, and get 360 degrees DAS and are able to deploy their IR weapons using it, how exactly would some extra sustained or instantaneous turning ability tilt the odds heavily in the F-35's favor???


Exactly.

What amount of kinematics can move you beyond the speed of light so things like enemy EODAS can't lock Vilters?

This is why dogfights are best avoided. The playing field is level whether you are an ace or a dud, an F-22 or an F-4. Good EM is not enough

Maybe you can share with the rest of us what airplane would be ideal in the future dogfight you describe.


Good EM will have its part to play in a future SHTF dogfight. Though SMSgt Mac makes a case that how EM is used in WVR dogfights now are not how it used to be used before things like all aspect missile, HOBs, and helmet mounted cueing and all that evil voodoo that reformers are seemingly against.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... ility.html

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 13:44
by sferrin
zero-one wrote:
sferrin wrote:
zero-one wrote:I think what most people are disappointed on is not the notion that the F-35 is toast in a phone booth. Because, a) I still think it can hold it's own. b.) it may seldomly get to that point anyway.

But the concern is, compared to other fighters, the F-35 seems to be at the low end of the performance hierarchy.
Thats how most people see it these days, a super stealthy, super smart, super hi-tech low performance fighter.

I mean do we really want it to be known for that.


Would you rather have the F-15s 100+-to-0 kill record or be able to do a "Cobra" at air shows like the Flanker? :doh:


Well first off, a Cobra is done at low energy states. Secondly, even the American officer at Redflag 2008 said that the Su-30MKI is a little better than the F-15. So yeah I would rather be in a Flanker if the Eagle is the only other option.

Point is, I wasn't comapring who would win a fight, the F-35 can still win due to SA superiority. But right now, if the JPO fails to address the performance issue, the F-35 will have the reputation of being at the low end of the performance scale.


Forest/trees. And at one point the F-22 had a "reputation" as a "slow, boxey, compromised, POS" by keyboard warriors such as yourself. "Hurrrrr fixed intakes can't do Mach 2 slower than ma' mighty Eagle." :roll:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 14:31
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:Exactly.

What amount of kinematics can move you beyond the speed of light so things like enemy EODAS can't lock Vilters?

This is why dogfights are best avoided. The playing field is level whether you are an ace or a dud, an F-22 or an F-4. Good EM is not enough

Maybe you can share with the rest of us what airplane would be ideal in the future dogfight you describe.


As long as we don't have weapons that travel at light speed and fighter aircraft can travel almost as fast as the projectile itself and can maneuver far longer than any missile and as long as gaining and braking lock involves maneuvering, E-M will always have a place even in the most network centric environment.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 14:56
by Gums
Salute!

"Doc!!!!! My neck hurts!"

No sierra.

Early days we were actually thinking about an assigned chiropracter (sp?). Biggest problem was for we IP's in the back seat of the family model. Joe Baggodonuts up front would do something we had not anticipated and suddenly our head was trapped against the canopy rail or whatever! If leaning fwd a bit, the sudden gee would really strain your neck. So walking back for debrief, we would scoop a handful of snow and shove it down the back of our necks, heh heh.

Nobody from other planes could remember fights lasting a minute or two at 4 - 5 gees. If we could go vertical and lose smash with the enema, then the 1 - 2 gee fights were neat at our max AoA on the limiter. Still could roll nice and maybe keep getting some altitude separation.

Gums remembers....

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 15:18
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Exactly.

What amount of kinematics can move you beyond the speed of light so things like enemy EODAS can't lock Vilters?

This is why dogfights are best avoided. The playing field is level whether you are an ace or a dud, an F-22 or an F-4. Good EM is not enough

Maybe you can share with the rest of us what airplane would be ideal in the future dogfight you describe.


As long as we don't have weapons that travel at light speed and fighter aircraft can travel almost as fast as the projectile itself and can maneuver far longer than any missile and as long as gaining and braking lock involves maneuvering, E-M will always have a place even in the most network centric environment.


I don't disagree, the point is its not enough by itself. unless the goal is to play defense the whole time while being shot at from all angles. No thanks, jeff.

We also assume that targeting and weapons will improve at a rate well beyond that of Human Physiology.


I guess we talk to Gums and he could tell us, but is there massive kinematic differentials in a slow speed turning fight that will make a difference when HOBS missiles start coming off the rails? IE in a phone booth when a F-35 is pulling 5G at 300 knots, does it matter when a Flanker is pulling 4G at 315 knots? and they both fire missiles is the "faster" and "kinematically superior" Flanker going to "dodge" any better than the F-35? Its a no escape zone.

The whole purpose is to kill the enemy. If that requires a BVR shot without having to alter course, great. The whole purpose of turning and burning and dogfighting is to get weapon systems in firing envelopes, if you can do that without the turning and burning, then turning and burning will be less important, save for when you are defensive. turning and burning Is not an end onto itself.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 15:45
by popcorn
Another way to look at this is to cite the statements of Gens. Hostage and Carlisle and countless subordinates, all combat vets ie. to send 4Gen jets against a modern IADS would be suicide. No fancy flying will make a difference vs. lethal missile systems.
Yet the F-35 is designed to defeat defenses and obviously it won't be superior kinematics that will enable it to succeed where 4Gens are slaughtered.

So don't expect investments to improve the JSF's EM performace, the operators of the jet know the money is better spent in upgrading it's active and passive countermeasure suites, avionics, sensors, LO, etc. Even any new engine that eventually makes it into the F-35 will be valued for improved range, greater reliability, lower maintenance and support costs, better ability to deal with thermal loads, etc.. any improvements in kinematic performance will be an ancillary benefit and likely be marginal due structural and pilot limitations.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 15:50
by uclass
XanderCrews wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:
vilters wrote:in all honesty, the F-35 fans are all so full of the upgraded and unparlelled SA and missiles to win fights.
That is OK for now, no problem with that.

But in the future? When more airplanes with get improved SA? And improved missiles?

Then you are left with a heavy F-35, with small wings, that has SA but no sustained turning energy.


If all its competitors get HMD's at par with its, and get 360 degrees DAS and are able to deploy their IR weapons using it, how exactly would some extra sustained or instantaneous turning ability tilt the odds heavily in the F-35's favor???


Exactly.

What amount of kinematics can move you beyond the speed of light so things like enemy EODAS can't lock Vilters?

This is why dogfights are best avoided. The playing field is level whether you are an ace or a dud, an F-22 or an F-4. Good EM is not enough

Maybe you can share with the rest of us what airplane would be ideal in the future dogfight you describe.

One with a really good 360deg DIRCM. :D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 15:55
by uclass
zero-one wrote:
As long as we don't have weapons that travel at light speed and fighter aircraft can travel almost as fast as the projectile itself and can maneuver far longer than any missile and as long as gaining and braking lock involves maneuvering, E-M will always have a place even in the most network centric environment.

What plane does Mach 4 whilst dog fighting? In fact what plane does Mach 4 at all? Good luck out-manoeuvring a 50+g missile doing over Mach 3. Break the lock of a modern FPA by manoeuvring?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 16:16
by XanderCrews
uclass wrote:
zero-one wrote:
As long as we don't have weapons that travel at light speed and fighter aircraft can travel almost as fast as the projectile itself and can maneuver far longer than any missile and as long as gaining and braking lock involves maneuvering, E-M will always have a place even in the most network centric environment.

What plane does Mach 4 whilst dog fighting? In fact what plane does Mach 4 at all? Good luck out-manoeuvring a 50+g missile doing over Mach 3. Break the lock of a modern FPA by manoeuvring?



There we go. We are already seeing the limitations of aircraft that are great and nimble turners the Gen 4, Gen 4+, and probably even the ultra nimble EuroCanards, thanks to HOBS missiles. In the 1990s folks were looking at it already and seeing "mutual kill" as both airplanes went into No Escape Zones that resulted in both aircraft being destroyed. That is nothing more than pure attrition warfare, and clearly not sustainable.

Image

impressive hard won skill, made obsolete by new technology checking in

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 16:30
by uclass
XanderCrews wrote:

There we go. We are already seeing the limitations of aircraft that are great and nimble turners the Gen 4, Gen 4+, and probably even the ultra nimble EuroCanards, thanks to HOBS missiles. In the 1990s folks were looking at it already and seeing "mutual kill" as both airplanes went into No Escape Zones that resulted in both aircraft being destroyed. That is nothing more than pure attrition warfare, and clearly not sustainable.

impressive hard won skill, made obsolete by new technology checking in

Indeed, it's one of the reasons we're making stuff like Meteor, to try and extend the no escape zone against non-VLO enemies.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 17:08
by tincansailor
mrigdon wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:
In the public mind it's still a Top Gun world of turn and burn air combat.


Unfortunately that is true. The biggest problem is trying to make the public understand the trend that most everyone (here and) in the military can see coming.


Does the public even care? What does that even mean? Looking at the various handles on this website, even throwing in Kinja over on FA and other sites, what percentage of the public is really paying attention? Is it more than five percent? I'd guess more like one or two percent. Even that seems high. The United States now has a population of 300 million. One percent would be 3 million people. Are 3 million people really reading F-16.net, Foxtrot Alpha, and War is Boring? I doubt it. The LM and DOD are really only writing press releases for people who read David Axe. Maybe that's why they didn't care (I'm wondering if someone at LM was just punking these guys).

I seriously doubt the general public remembers Top Gun (other than the volleyball scene) or anything about air combat in Vietnam (how many movies about pilots flying over Vietnam were ever made? One?). They're pretty content to let the military do what the military wants to do. The only members of the public who get upset seem to be people around air force bases who may see their squadrons shut down. But that will only affect one House member and the two Senators. And the Senators can probably blow off one district over this sort of thing.

The newest budget funds F-35s above and beyond what the Pentagon requested. The politicians don't seem to have any issues with spending the money, at least the ones who count, the ones on committees. I'm sure in those districts that are losing A-10 squadrons, the David Axe article got some play, but has it made it into the Washington Post or the New York Times? Do the people making the actual decisions care? They already know about this. They knew when they were making the budget and they put in more money.


Agreed. Very few in the American Public know or care about anything other what goes on directly in their own lives. I'm also sure these forums though interesting to us have very little effect on these issues. Congress, the Military, and our allies have their own thing going on. Most of the time they get it right, but that's a subjective thing. I do think movies, and other popular culture have some effect on general public attitudes, which can effect policy.

In 1927 the movie "Wings" helped recruit a generation of flyers that won WWII. Even seeing F-35's in superhero movies like "Man of Steel" is a good thing. The A-10's in that movie were awesome, which only added to the legend that keeps those planes from going to the Bone Yard. The A-10 is a case in point. Among my small circle of friends who have worked in the aviation industry, or are just enthusiasts like myself the A-10 is the perfect warmachine. A friend of mine who spent years driving Bradley Scout Vehicles thinks the same thing. Between the public perception, and a key congresswoman we can't get the maintainers transitioned to the new F-35 sqds. If Tom Cruise was a congressman we'd still be flying F-14's.

All I'm saying is politics is partly driven by psychological factors, and many things effect it. The fortunes of the Space Program rose and fell based on public support. At one point we were spending 1% of GDP on the Space Program. Today Japan & and many European countries barely spend that much on their whole defense budget. Life is about setting priorities. In ancient Egypt they spent about 10% of GDP building tombs.

A friend of mine likes to sing a silly song about eggs. It goes to the effect that a fish lays a million eggs, and a hen lays just one. We scorn the fish and praise the hen, so it pays to advertise.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 17:09
by zero-one
uclass wrote:What plane does Mach 4 whilst dog fighting? In fact what plane does Mach 4 at all? Good luck out-manoeuvring a 50+g missile doing over Mach 3. Break the lock of a modern FPA by manoeuvring?


Well I'm not here to say that Kinematics are the most important factor, but I will say it'still has its place.

and also, like aircraft, missiles don't fly at Mach 4 and pull 50Gs all the time, they also have envelopes.

Mach 4 may be achieved at the terminal phase if the missile didn't turn to catch a maneuvering target,
the AMRAAM's max G load is less than 40Gs IIRC, and I doubt it can pull that many Gs for sustained periods
that may be a instantaneous G pull.

Anyway, my point was simply, what ever happened to the JPO's claim that the F-35 matches any 4th gen aircraft in
"just about any kinematic measure" including the Typhoon, F-16 and F/A-18 which are some of the World's best dogfighting machines.

Suddenly this news comes up, are we really going to stick to "it's not really a dogfighter anyway" as our best defense?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 18:00
by eloise
About the recent article about F-35 being beaten by f-16 carry fuel tank, here is the post written by a pilot trying to clear our confusion around the event :

mkellytx wrote:First of all way too much is being made of this test and some players are taking things seriously out of context to grind axes. So, what is of primary importance is to understand what the test objectives were. The FLTS's out at Edwards don't fly unless they have a clear objective to gather technical data, that's what Developmental Test is all about. So, what were the objectives? From the report
OBJECTIVE
The test was designed to stress the high AoA control laws during operationally representative
maneuvers utilizing elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs
The evaluation focused on the
overall effectiveness of the aircraft in performing various specified maneuvers in a dynamic
environment. This consisted of traditional Basic Fighter Maneuvers in offensive, defensive, and neutral
setups at altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 feet MSL. The Flying Qualities criteria were that the
aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected,
or unpredictable aircraft responses. Qualitative observations were made regarding the high AoA
capability, cues that the aircraft was entering a low energy state, as well as various human factors
considerations
.

Please note that the object wasn't to see how the F-35 stacked up to the Viper as a dogfight, rather it was to press the limits of the high AoA control laws and then report out the flying qualities in that regime, using various specified maneuvers. The Viper was there to make things dynamic and unscripted. Also, please note "elevated AoAs and aggressive stick/pedal inputs" are also preludes to departing an aircraft, so the evaluation of the effectiveness was how does the anti-spin logic effect high AoA BFM. Of course that's exactly what the JPO statement said.
The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against

Next take a look at the setups
MISSION EXECUTION
The sortie consisted of standard administration to the Sea Test Range. Ranging exercises were
conducted to familiarize the target aircraft with F-35 visual cues. An offensive capture/tracking task was
completed by the F-35 from 6,000 feet slant range with a 3,000 foot vertical offset at 22,000' MSl and
400 kts. All other testing consisted of traditional BFM setups starting at 22,000' MSL and 440 kts for 6K
and 9K fights and 20,000' MSl at 380 kts for 3K fights.
The neutral fights began at approximately
18,000' to 20,000' with no limitations on airspeed or altitude following the check away. The floor was
10,000' MSL. In all, there were seventeen engagements. No loads or other aircraft limits were
exceeded with unrestricted throttle, stick, and rudder inputs.

All I have handy right now are the Block 50/52 performance charts, but they're close enough to the 40 to show that the 3K, 6K and 9K setups are right at the sweet spots of the Viper's performance.

Two 370's Drag Index 70
22,000' MSL 440 KCAS is 0.96M
20,000' MSL 380 KCAS is 0.81M
Note assuming KCAS not KTAS since that's what displays in the HUD and the EM chart below
Image
Puts things in perspective here. So, the Viper was flying right around it's corner and max instantaneous, while the F-35 was supposed to go elevated AoA and see if the control laws would prevent the plane from departing when performing elevated AoA BFM. The Viper was at a clear advantage all along, but it wasn't there to win, it was there as a visual reference to maneuver against. The whole point was to put the F-35 in a bad position and see what the control laws did. Which is exactly what the JPO said.
While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading.

Turns out the early law are biased towards departure prevention(not a bad thing early in a program), not exactly an Earth shattering discovery, and that there's plenty of margin available to improve performance, again not exactly Earth shattering. At least a sizable subset of these critics aren't old enough to remember that the first wave of FBW A/C went through similar cycle or didn't pay attention/forgot that Super Bug and Raptor did also.

Now with the critic's original argument discredited they take something else out of context...Wash, lather, repeat, the cycle continues. They're always certain their right but curiously avoid making a stand in the face of a rigorous technical argument.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 18:12
by popcorn
zero-one wrote:[
Anyway, my point was simply, what ever happened to the JPO's claim that the F-35 matches any 4th gen aircraft in
"just about any kinematic measure" including the Typhoon, F-16 and F/A-18 which are some of the World's best dogfighting machines.

Suddenly this news comes up, are we really going to stick to "it's not really a dogfighter anyway" as our best defense?

Is that really what JPO has claimed? Please cite your source. It's been clear from the very beginning that the baseline comparisons have been of the F-35 with internal ordnance vs. Legacy jets with external weaponry, sensor pods and EFTs. This applies to RCS and kinematic performance. And the flying qualities of the jet may be assessed using said baseline and only after development is completed. Definitely not based on the result of a single development test,

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 18:25
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:
zero-one wrote:[
Anyway, my point was simply, what ever happened to the JPO's claim that the F-35 matches any 4th gen aircraft in
"just about any kinematic measure" including the Typhoon, F-16 and F/A-18 which are some of the World's best dogfighting machines.

Suddenly this news comes up, are we really going to stick to "it's not really a dogfighter anyway" as our best defense?

Is that really what JPO has claimed? Please cite your source. It's been clear from the very beginning that the baseline comparisons have been of the F-35 with internal ordnance vs. Legacy jets with external weaponry, sensor pods and EFTs. This applies to RCS and kinematic performance. And the flying qualities of the jet may be assessed using said baseline and only after development is completed. Definitely not based on the result of a single development test,


Or a poorly worded press release...

I'm not trying to make excuses. I think zero one that is one of your points. I'm not trying to say "well the F-35 sucks at dogfighting, thus dogfighting is now obsolete since the F-35 can't do it, ensuring my fan boyish ways remain intact."

I think this is a single test point that has been blown way out of proportion which was David axes mission when he wrote that piece. I think the F-35 when all is said and done will live up to what many pilots have claimed about its capabilities (maybe not Flynn, but then again he flew Typhoons...) in kinematics. So I think it's a little soon to declare that the F-35 can't move just yet.

As far as I am concerned my points about dogfights remain the same. There will be dogfights in the future but they will be very rare, and when they do happen they will not resemble what we have seen before. Pilots will have to be far more guarded and cautious and there may not be a single 6 o clock shot to be seen. Even more so if the actions take place at night.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 18:26
by laserbones
Newbie here...hello everyone.

This entire issue seems to be comparing apples to oranges. Don't all modern era fighter aircraft during development testing go through specific flight test regimes against older planes? What would be the point of doing an apples to apples 1v1 with not only the F-35, but also the F-16, performing BFM at high AoA?

My understanding is that this type of flight control laws testing has more to do to with fine tuning the flight control software than it does with a comparison of energy management between two dissimilar airframes where one is at high alpha and the other is not under a similar restriction.

Isn't the report kinda "boilerplate" with straight forward objectives based on the test pilot's observations?

Have I completely missed the point of the report in question?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 18:27
by XanderCrews
laserbones wrote:Newbie here...hello everyone.

This entire issue seems to be comparing apples to oranges. Don't all modern era fighter aircraft during development testing go through specific flight test regimes against older planes? What would be the point of doing an apples to apples 1v1 with not only the F-35, but also the F-16, performing BFM at high AoA?

My understanding is that this type of flight control laws testing has more to do to with fine tuning the flight control software than it does with a comparison of energy management between two dissimilar airframes where one is at high alpha and the other is not under a similar restriction.

Isn't the report kinda "boilerplate" with straight forward objectives based on the test pilot's observations?

Have I completely missed the point of the report in question?


No I think that is pretty well said. Welcome aboard

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 18:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
no, laserbones, you nailed it. But just as all tests that are there to test a small aspect people will inevitably look at the test as a failure or success for the whole program.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 18:39
by uclass
zero-one wrote:
Well I'm not here to say that Kinematics are the most important factor, but I will say it'still has its place.

and also, like aircraft, missiles don't fly at Mach 4 and pull 50Gs all the time, they also have envelopes.

Mach 4 may be achieved at the terminal phase if the missile didn't turn to catch a maneuvering target,
the AMRAAM's max G load is less than 40Gs IIRC, and I doubt it can pull that many Gs for sustained periods
that may be a instantaneous G pull.

An experienced pilot will always launch the missile within parameter where it will out-perform the target. AMRAAM is about 40g AFAIK and it only need to do it once or twice. Given the huge difference in speed, the actual correction required by the missile is pretty small, in the time an aircraft moves 10-12m, a missile closes 100m. So even if the movement is perpendicular to the missile (worst case for intercept) the angular adjustment by the missile is small and even if they miss the fragmentation will still kill the target at 10-12m range.

zero-one wrote:Anyway, my point was simply, what ever happened to the JPO's claim that the F-35 matches any 4th gen aircraft in
"just about any kinematic measure" including the Typhoon, F-16 and F/A-18 which are some of the World's best dogfighting machines.

Suddenly this news comes up, are we really going to stick to "it's not really a dogfighter anyway" as our best defense?

Well the test was on a development aircraft having its flight envelope expanded, so it wasn't an operational test, just LM in-house testing. The Typhoon comment was admittedly either a stretch or misinterpretation, I believe they meant with a bomb load or something, i.e. in a strike package, where external pylon loads would greatly reduce manoeuvrability. But then it doesn't need to out-perform a Typhoon clean because it's VLO and has better SA.

The fair fight people envisage in these comparisons will never happen. Given modern missiles, both radar and IIR, the only way a dog-fight can happen is if someone goes full retard during a routine escort after the aircraft have already closed. Anything other scenario and a head-on pass will never occur.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 18:44
by eloise
vilters wrote:Then you are left with a heavy F-35, with small wings, that has SA but no sustained turning energy.


1) read this, ignore other part about kill ratio, acceleration.. etc concentrated only on range :
Image
Image
what do you see? Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale all need 3 external fuel tank to fly around the same distance that F-35, Su-30MKI can go using only internal fuel.Which mean F-35 will only need around 40-50% fuel to match the range that other need 100% internal fuel, would that be fair to compare their respective wing loading, thrust/weight using the same percentage of fuel?, i dont think so.

Common comparison on internet using similar percentage fuel for different is incredibly unfair for aircraft like F-35.

2) F-35 was defeated by an F-16 carry 2 fuel tank must sound very terrible to you, like you know F-35 wasn't good at WVR but how can it be so shitty at it that it cant even defeat something carrying fuel tank? . Actually even if we ignore that this is an exercise to test F-35 control law and AoA, , losing to an F-16 carrying 2 fuel tank isn't as bad as it may sound since we dont know about the fuel load of both aircraft.
Do you know that an F-16 with 50% fuel and 2 empty fuel tank can defeat a clean Su-27 with 100% fuel?
For F-16 drag index of each 370Gal without any other stores in nearby pylons is 27; 2x27+7(Basic F-16C drag index), so total drag index = 61.
-At DI=50 at 25000lbs, F-16 could still sustain ~18,6deg/s STR, have ~23,2 deg/s ITR, and have 800+fps climb rate.
-At DI=100 at 25000lbs, F-16 could still sustain ~18,4 deg/s STR, have ~23,1 deg/s ITR, and have 800+fps climb rate.
. A Su-27S at full fuel load is limited to 6,65Gs, so turn rate at 500 KTAS will be around 14,7 deg/s, limited by G load
obviously Su-27 with 50% fuel gonna be alot more agile but the point is compare aircraft ability without knowing fuel load can be very misleading

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 19:15
by zero-one
popcorn wrote:Is that really what JPO has claimed? Please cite your source. It's been clear from the very beginning that the baseline comparisons have been of the F-35 with internal ordnance vs. Legacy jets with external weaponry, sensor pods and EFTs. This applies to RCS and kinematic performance. And the flying qualities of the jet may be assessed using said baseline and only after development is completed. Definitely not based on the result of a single development test,


http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/ty ... al-combat/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 20:44
by fondueset
Failed to introduce myself earlier - but that's okay. Talking about myself is boring.

I have, however, re-read the pilot report in question several times and done other homework.

Heres what I've gathered:

Bad Thing (physical limitation): - energy.
F-35, in whatever the fuel state was - which I'm sure changed significantly through 17 engagements - can't match the f-16 E-wise.

Maybe not so Bad Things:

Controls were slow to respond and "lacked authority". At this point - pretty much a software problem. In fact - almost the entire report (except for the E part) was about software - at least as regards flying qualities. Of note is mention of the fact that load tolerances were never exceeded while inputs were unlimited. Exceeding already the risk of stating the obvious - this means the outputs were limited - either by lame control surfaces or by software.

To that last; Yaw rate was noted as "Fantastic" until the ASL kicked in and ruined it. The pilot notes problems with control authority when being input by the pilot - but very pronounced and effective control authority when the ASL kicked in. Having observed that excellent control authority is available to the ASL and, transiently, in Yaw- he concludes that it is, in fact, mechanically there in the airframe and suggests increasing what is available to the pilot. (Of note is that better control authority might tweak the E-fight as well - maybe some of you who actually know what you are talking about can comment on that)

Given all the histrionics on both sides of this alleged argument, and the anti-f35 enabling responses from various pro-f35 authorities, I tried to do the most mean spirited reading of the report that I could - but it's pretty black and white what's being said. It doesn't match the f16 in an E-fight AND The flight control settings are too conservative and slow to respond.

I don't know why the official types are talking about it not being a dogfighter. From what the pilot said it seems to have the potential to more than not suck.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 20:56
by zero-one
XanderCrews wrote:
Or a poorly worded press release...

I'm not trying to make excuses. I think zero one that is one of your points. I'm not trying to say "well the F-35 sucks at dogfighting, thus dogfighting is now obsolete since the F-35 can't do it, ensuring my fan boyish ways remain intact."

I think this is a single test point that has been blown way out of proportion which was David axes mission when he wrote that piece. I think the F-35 when all is said and done will live up to what many pilots have claimed about its capabilities (maybe not Flynn, but then again he flew Typhoons...) in kinematics. So I think it's a little soon to declare that the F-35 can't move just yet.

As far as I am concerned my points about dogfights remain the same. There will be dogfights in the future but they will be very rare, and when they do happen they will not resemble what we have seen before. Pilots will have to be far more guarded and cautious and there may not be a single 6 o clock shot to be seen. Even more so if the actions take place at night.


Okey Xander, I think I may have pressed enough buttons on you, for you to result to name calling, I apologize, just to be clear, I'm not anti-F35, If anything Im simply anti-JPO PR team, they did a horrible job in answering this one.

First off, no aircraft flying today is built "necessarily for dogfighting" the last one was Mig-29A in the early 80s.

Every aircraft built since is intended to use advanced sensors and avoid detection whether by jamming, LO or a combination to kill bandits hopefully before the merge.

But that didn't stop them from having very impressive kinematics for that very off chance that you somehow still manage to get into a merge.

When the F-22 reportedly got beaten by Typhoons the Raptor community's response was appropriate

F-22 pilots wrote:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ag-373312/

"the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuvre the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots," another USAF pilot says."


The Raptor was never built as a dogfighter, infact the F-35 is more likely to end up in a dogfight than that bird, but they're response silenced critics.

The JPO should have thought this through more carefully.

In senate hearings in Australia, senators are quoting Carlo Kopp on his "F-35 can't turn" assesments and facing it on RAAF's faces. They're response is marginally better but still pretty much the same going along the lines of, "I got shot down whenever I went into a dogfight so we don't really want to go there in the first place, but the F-35 can turn just as well as an F-16"

I wouldn't be surprised if future Senate or congressional hearings will use this report to put the procurement process in question somehow.

Any of us here could of done a better job at answering David Axe then the guys at the JPO PR team

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 21:04
by spazsinbad
Gums wrote:Salute!

"Doc!!!!! My neck hurts!"

No sierra.

Early days we were actually thinking about an assigned chiropracter (sp?). Biggest problem was for we IP's in the back seat of the family model. Joe Baggodonuts up front would do something we had not anticipated and suddenly our head was trapped against the canopy rail or whatever! If leaning fwd a bit, the sudden gee would really strain your neck. So walking back for debrief, we would scoop a handful of snow and shove it down the back of our necks, heh heh.

Nobody from other planes could remember fights lasting a minute or two at 4 - 5 gees. If we could go vertical and lose smash with the enema, then the 1 - 2 gee fights were neat at our max AoA on the limiter. Still could roll nice and maybe keep getting some altitude separation.

Gums remembers....

Nice with the snow - as long as it was not YELLOW! - and of which we have none in Oz with our 720 degree per second rolling TA4Gs backseaters just had to koala bear it and yep thankfully the high G was not for long except if down in the weeds (legally) doing some turning and burning at max. constant RPM - break left - break right - in battle formation or whatever. This we called 'STRIKE PROGRESSION' - yeah right. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 21:18
by spazsinbad
The AVIATIONIST Billie Flynn quote is this: [then the Typhoid Pilot explains his point of view - just keep in mind the words of Flynn who does not say nor make the comparison that the Typoonie does]
“No way an F-35 will ever match a Typhoon fighter jet in aerial combat” Eurofighter test pilot says
11 Feb 2013 David Cenciotti

"...Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the Eurofighter Typhoon (that during last year’s Red Flag Alaska achieved several simulated kills against the F-22 Raptor) and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flyinn said.

According to the Lockheed pilot, (besides its stealthiness) the F-35 features better transonic acceleration and high AOA (angle-of-attack) flight performance than an armed Typhoon or Super Hornet...."

Source: http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/ty ... al-combat/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 21:19
by gabriele
eloise wrote:
vilters wrote:Then you are left with a heavy F-35, with small wings, that has SA but no sustained turning energy.


1) read this, ignore other part about kill ratio, acceleration.. etc concentrated only on range :
Image
Image
what do you see? Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale all need 3 external fuel tank to fly around the same distance that F-35, Su-30MKI can go using only internal fuel.Which mean F-35 will only need around 40-50% fuel to match the range that other need 100% internal fuel, would that be fair to compare their respective wing loading, thrust/weight using the same percentage of fuel?, i dont think so.

Common comparison on internet using similar percentage fuel for different is incredibly unfair for aircraft like F-35.

2) F-35 was defeated by an F-16 carry 2 fuel tank must sound very terrible to you, like you know F-35 wasn't good at WVR but how can it be so shitty at it that it cant even defeat something carrying fuel tank? . Actually even if we ignore that this is an exercise to test F-35 control law and AoA, , losing to an F-16 carrying 2 fuel tank isn't as bad as it may sound since we dont know about the fuel load of both aircraft.
Do you know that an F-16 with 50% fuel and 2 empty fuel tank can defeat a clean Su-27 with 100% fuel?
For F-16 drag index of each 370Gal without any other stores in nearby pylons is 27; 2x27+7(Basic F-16C drag index), so total drag index = 61.
-At DI=50 at 25000lbs, F-16 could still sustain ~18,6deg/s STR, have ~23,2 deg/s ITR, and have 800+fps climb rate.
-At DI=100 at 25000lbs, F-16 could still sustain ~18,4 deg/s STR, have ~23,1 deg/s ITR, and have 800+fps climb rate.
. A Su-27S at full fuel load is limited to 6,65Gs, so turn rate at 500 KTAS will be around 14,7 deg/s, limited by G load
obviously Su-27 with 50% fuel gonna be alot more agile but the point is compare aircraft ability without knowing fuel load can be very misleading



Unfortunately, a 2009 document about F-35 kinematics and range has very little authority today after the well advertised downgrading of estimates and KPPs in 2011. Much of what was said before was overly optimistic and is no longer valid.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 21:22
by spazsinbad
On this thread there is a link to actual text to that 2009 two page graphic image of text [oops - must have put the text on another forum altogether - so I'll post it here soonish like]. Meanwhile 'gabriele' says this: "...downgrading of estimates and KPPs in 2011...". As I recall this downgrading was specific and limited. Care to tell us what downgrade was 'gabriele'?
Lockheed Martin defends JSF's close-in capabilities
13 Feb 2009 Julian Kerr

"Key Points:
• The F-35 has little advantage over other aircraft: in combat situations within visual range, Lockheed Martin has conceded

• However, the aircraft's superior stealth and situational awareness means it comfortably outperforms rivals in longer-range scenarios


Lockheed Martin has defended the air-to-air capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) while conceding that the aircraft's performance in combat within visual range (WVR) will only be marginally superior to that of its fourth-generation and advanced fourth-generation counterparts.

Briefing Australian journalists at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility on 2 February, Jerry Mazanowski, senior manager of air systems in the company's strategic studies group, compared the air-to-air performance of the F-35 with that of the Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI. He said that in a typical combat configuration carrying four internally stored AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), the F-35 was marginally faster than the Su-30MKI carrying eight beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles and no external fuel tanks; and that it was faster than the Eurofighter, Gripen C, Rafale and F/A-18 carrying four BVR and two WVR missiles and a single external fuel tank (two in the Eurofighter's case).

On an air-to-air mission with a radius of 200 n miles, no external fuel tanks but the same missile load and a requirement to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft, the F-35 was shown coming second best.

With a requirement involving the same acceleration and the aircraft: tasked for a 600 n mile 'out and back' mission, Mazanowski said the F-35 was "nothing stellar but certainly not an underperformer in this category".

When accelerating from Mach 0.6 to 0.95 - important if evading a surface-to-air missile or in combat with other aircraft: - the F-35 showed a comparable performance to its counterparts. Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which all the aircraft: took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.

Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen 502 n miles.

According to Mazanowski, the JSF joint programme office required the modelling to assume an F- 35 engine at the end of its life with 5 per cent fuel degradation and a 2 per cent reduction in thrust. The counterpart aircraft were given the benefit of the doubt wherever platform and systems performance were not clear - as, for example, in the assumption that all five would have active electronically scanned array radars operational within five years.

Modelling based on operational experience and simulation showed that 72 per cent of future engagements would be BVR, 31 per cent would be at transitional range (between 8 n miles and 18 n miles) and 7 per cent WVR.

Mazanowski acknowledged that these figures did not take account of BVR engagements that might develop into WVR engagements.

Taking all salient aircraft characteristics into account and utilising the Brawler modelling and simulation tool, the F-35 showed a better than six to one relative loss exchange ratio while the other aircraft scored less than one to one. This was in a four-versus-four scenario against what Mazanowski described as a "threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future".

He attributed this almost entirely to the F-35's superior stealth and situational awareness. In a WVR engagement, the differences in the capabilities of the various aircraft were barely measurable. Although the F-35 was assumed not to be carrying externally mounted short-range AIM-9X missiles to avoid increasing its radar cross-section, Mazanowski praised the short-range performance of AMRAAM.

"The WNR environment, once you get there, is very awkward and very lethal. We think the F-35 may have some limited advantage in situational awareness with its DAS [distributed aperture system] and hopefully there would be enough wingmen to work their way out of the situation," Mazanowski said.

He added: "One guy has a little bit of an advantage in WNR and can shoot first, but both folks end up not doing well.""

Source: download/file.php?id=20843&mode=view
&
download/file.php?id=20844&mode=view

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 21:31
by gabriele
Acceleration times were extended, and range estimates were revised downwards. The actual range seems to remain uncertain to this day, actually. Still only estimates, but closer to the threshold values than to the higher values which circulated earlier.

Turn performance for the US Air Force's F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to five sustained g's. Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... al-381683/

Ranges went down to a low point of 584 nm for the F-35A (below the 590 treshold), at one point. I think the estimate picked up some later on, but i don't recall which recent document contained the data. F-35B 469 and F-35C 615 nm.

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/ ... redictions

I take from the report from the AoA test that the turning could also pick up some with the control laws being corrected. Acceleration probably won't change until the engine does. And range is uncertain. For me, anything that pre-dates 2011 is simply unreliable. Too much change followed, to trust the earlier estimates.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 21:49
by spazsinbad
OK thanks for the update 'gabriele'. Here is what the good SMSgtMac has to say at the time of 'the change' - Oh the Horror. :drool: :mrgreen: :roll: :shock:
The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change
17 Apr 2013 SMSgtMac

Source:
PART ONE: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... -spec.html
&
PART TWO: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... -spec.html

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 22:06
by spazsinbad
OVER on SECRET PROJECTS (got it rite this time) there is this recent funny.
steelpillow Reply #187

"...There is a clue in the last word in the phrase "joint strike fighter". One of the reports remarked to the effect that "Pilots like manoeuvrability": well, slap me round the face with a wet kipper if it ain't the truth!

That a new "fighter" should be outmanoeuvred by an ancient F-22 is clearly not good. However I am minded of the video card in this PC. It was sold with crap firmware, barely enough to get online and download the production version that the manufacturer had kept working on, and now that I have done that it is s*** hot. I have friends whose smartphones behaved much the same. The moral is simple: a modern fighter aircraft is not just the aeroplane (oh yes and the pilot and engine, oh yes and the armament, which is to say not just the weapons and ammunition but also the targeting and control gubbins, oh yes and the satellite system that its satnav relies on) but it is also the onboard software. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but walks like a chicken then it is not yet a duck. So, we have found to our amazement that a chicken in a duck suit cannot swim like a real duck. Well, well, well. Before we make hasty judgements here, let's get the duck software developed and see if the F-35 can out-perform my graphics card!"

Source: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg253822

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 23:50
by aaam
sferrin wrote:
aaam wrote:
sferrin wrote:
AIM-9X is pretty damn good. Block II is even better. Today's WVR missiles (5th gen) are downright scary.


But sadly Block III, which was to overcome the performance deficiencies of AIM-9X relative to other missiles of its class and was also primarily for the F-35, is being canceled


Meh. As much as I wish they hadn't cancelled it, it was pretty much a WVR missile that could double as a BVR missile. AIM-9X Block II is hardly a POS.


FWIW:

Just for the record, I never implied that AIM-9X Block II was a POS. The fact remains, though, that during the selection process it was readily apparent that DoD was strongly going primarily for lowest cost over best value. The proposal that became AIM-9X was actually the least capable alternative proposed. In fact, Raytheon even made two proposals, one of which was more capable and had a much more effective seeker, but it was their less expensive version (which was the lowest cost of all proposals) that was selected. Although the -9X offers a number of significant electronic improvements over all previous versions, the missile itself is essentially a -9M with thrust vectoring. What increased performance it has is due primarily to lower drag (smaller fins helped a lot). Performance-wise ASRAAM, Python and the like probably have more. Block II added the datalink and LOAL, but otherwise didn't increase performance of the missile itself. In fact initially, although doing quite well in testing, Block II's HOBS performance without a helmet actually wasn't as good as Block I's. This was thought to be a software deficiency, which shouldn't be too hard to correct.

Whereas I and II were electronics improvements, Block II concentrated on the missile itself. One of the big concerns was an adversary jamming AIM-120's radar through the use of advanced digital radio frequency memory jammers, hence a desire to increase missile range. It was expected to have a 60%+ increase in range with no loss in agility through a new rocket motor and improved power management. The improved performance could also be used to expand the no-escape zone at regular AIM-9 ranges. It also would feature a new insensitive munitions warhead, which is still going to be developed and adopted by the existing versions.

A big thing USN was looking for with Block II was to give F-35C the ability to carry six BVR missiles. Four AIM-120s internally, and two -9X Block IIIs on the wing.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 00:18
by bring_it_on
But sadly Block III, which was to overcome the performance deficiencies of AIM-9X relative to other missiles of its class and was also primarily for the F-35, is being canceled


I don't think it is sad at all. There is a serious look taking place into how to arm 5th generation fleet into the 20's, 30's and beyond. General Hostage eluded to it..The T3 fired at least 7 missiles at live targets...Although the Aim-9X blk. III would have been a great weapon with a new motor, but I feel the money is better spent on something like the CUDA that provides impressive magazine depth. The Aim-9X would have been one solution but the JSF would have to give up arguably its greatest asset in stealth to carry it. Far better to think long term and design something that works in the bays.

The way I saw it the block III sidewinder would have been extremely helpful to the F-18E/F and the F-15C fleets given that they are slated to get the IRST and could have deployed such a weapon in RF degraded environment using that sensor at medium ranges. In all honesty the Aim-9X blk. III for the F-35 was a 4th generation solution to 5th generation fighter needs...Great as a "patch" but poor from the long term planning point of view. What the F-35 needs in the long term is a 6 AMRAAM capability, perhaps an IR AMRAAM and a CUDA - class missile ...

Don't think the USN has given up on the block III, expect something to happen in the next few years once the budget mess subsides.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 01:33
by XanderCrews
zero-one wrote:
Okey Xander, I think I may have pressed enough buttons on you, for you to result to name calling, I apologize, just to be clear, I'm not anti-F35, If anything Im simply anti-JPO PR team, they did a horrible job in answering this one.



I'm sorry I didn't mean to name call you-- I was referring to myself as a "fanboy". Just saying I don't want to sound like a hypocrite by saying Dogfighting was irrelevant if the F-35 couldn't do it. It still has relevancy, and I would like it very much if the F-35 gets at or near the F-16 in agility, which is swinging a big stick as far as I am concerned F-16 has a great reputation close in, and that was the goal afterall. The post wasn't meant to be mean or rude in tone.

I think the big controversy was we all knew that the F-35 was not going to be an F-22, and that was used as a slight against it, but the goal was F-16 like (which you point out below), and that was very respectable. The big issue is the Axe piece looks like its not even near an F-16. I think its too soon to write it off as inferior just yet.


The Raptor was never built as a dogfighter, infact the F-35 is more likely to end up in a dogfight than that bird, but they're response silenced critics.

The JPO should have thought this through more carefully.

In senate hearings in Australia, senators are quoting Carlo Kopp on his "F-35 can't turn" assesments and facing it on RAAF's faces. They're response is marginally better but still pretty much the same going along the lines of, "I got shot down whenever I went into a dogfight so we don't really want to go there in the first place, but the F-35 can turn just as well as an F-16"

I wouldn't be surprised if future Senate or congressional hearings will use this report to put the procurement process in question somehow.

Any of us here could of done a better job at answering David Axe then the guys at the JPO PR team


I agree the JPO response was rather ham fisted. I do think the F-35 will get its chance. People were saying the same thing about the "Super Slow Hornet" in its development:

Some fun history on the Super Hornet’s old wing drop issue now fixed. Well it is kinda fixed. A few years ago they took a test bird and put wing fences on it to see if it could help the poor wing performance.

From the following source: Pieter M. Groenendijk, Pioneering at Pax, Combat Aircraft, Vol.7, No. 8,September 2006:

-In August 2003, new flight test programs began, aimed at reducing buffet levels and determining a final wing configuration while maintaining the elimination of wing drop. Multiple wing fence configurations were tested and finally, a 5in tall, full-chord wing fence with a solid wing-folding door and a saw-tooth leading edge flap was selected.-

The article shows a test Super Hornet with red wing fences on it. What were the follow-on results? Unknown. Either there wasn’t enough money to refit the Super Hornet fleet with wing fences or it just wasn’t worth the money given the low threat environ the jet flies in today. Wing fences if installed could also goof the effect of its’ low observable appliances.

Then there is some other fun reading from Bill Sweetman. He is a highly skilled writer on military aviation issues. Some military organizations even quote his work.

-Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-

-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don’t mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.

For example: “The airplane meets all its key performance parameters.” This is true. In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-

-Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000-

-The Navy’s operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.-

-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999-

-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope.

Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-

So, those are some of the things Defence would prefer that the taxpayer who is shelling out $6.6 billion dollars for this bad purchase decision, not know. The U.S. Congress was lied to in order to be convinced to fund the Super Hornet. They were told: “It’s just an upgrade”. This allowed Super Hornet to bypass the first step in procurement for a new type of aircraft which essentially Super Hornet is. After that the program had a lot of engineering fixes to perform.

This leads to where the Super Hornet is today in it’s Block II form: Great avionics with poor airframe performance to back it up.

https://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2007/1 ... u-to-know/


And

Navy statement (as of March 2001): "F/A-18E/F Super Hornet .... Leading Naval Aviation into the 21st Century. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a winner... it's affordable... and it's flying today, exceeding every operational goal. F/A-18E/F will outperform any top-line fighter aircraft of today and tomorrow."

Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002):
° "The (F/A-18E/F) aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F SuperHornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the SuperHornet (in an Associated Press article in late 2001):
"Its the same old Hornet sh*t, repackaged, which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing, there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this avaition masterpiece rot in hell."

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 01:54
by popcorn
zero-one wrote:
popcorn wrote:Is that really what JPO has claimed? Please cite your source. It's been clear from the very beginning that the baseline comparisons have been of the F-35 with internal ordnance vs. Legacy jets with external weaponry, sensor pods and EFTs. This applies to RCS and kinematic performance. And the flying qualities of the jet may be assessed using said baseline and only after development is completed. Definitely not based on the result of a single development test,


http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/ty ... al-combat/



My point exactly. The KPPs are well known to everyone connected wih the program, or should be. So when they talk about the F-35 specially in comparison with previous jets it's fair to assume they're comparing the KPP configurations and assume a legacy jet configured to most closely match the former ie. all dirtied up with stuff under the wings. Billy Flynn conscientuously mentioned
"combat payload' and I can easily envision instances when others may have failed to do so inadvertently in making public statements simply because for them it's a given but not so some in their audience who then reach all sorts of wrong conclusions. There would have been no intent to deceive or lie in such an instance and to attempt to do so would be folly in such a highly visible program.


From your link :

In an interesting piece by Flight’s Dave Majumdar, Bill Flynn, Lockheed test pilot responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for the F-35 claimed that all three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter will have better kinematic performance than any fourth-generation fighter plane with combat payload, including the Eurofighter Typhoon (that during last year’s Red Flag Alaska achieved several simulated kills against the F-22 Raptor) and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“In terms of instantaneous and sustained turn rates and just about every other performance metric, the F-35 variants match or considerably exceed the capabilities of every fourth-generation fighter,” Flyinn said.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 02:47
by spazsinbad
This is what was highlighted on previous page of this same thread:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=294700&hilit=Billie#p294700

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 03:05
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:This is what was highlighted on previous page of this same thread:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=294700&hilit=Billie#p294700

Yep, saw your post afterwards.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 03:36
by zero-one
popcorn wrote:My point exactly. The KPPs are well known to everyone connected wih the program, or should be. So when they talk about the F-35 specially in comparison with previous jets it's fair to assume they're comparing the KPP configurations and assume a legacy jet configured to most closely match the former ie. all dirtied up with stuff under the wings. Billy Flynn conscientuously mentioned
"combat payload' and I can easily envision instances when others may have failed to do so inadvertently in making public statements simply because for them it's a given but not so some in their audience who then reach all sorts of wrong conclusions. There would have been no intent to deceive or lie in such an instance and to attempt to do so would be folly in such a highly visible


I would like to think that "combat payload" means at tactical maneuvering configuration. They were not specific on that.

There is a demo of a Typhoon carrying 2 EFTs, 4 eggs and 4 AAMs and it's maneuverability was appalling. I hope that thats not what they were referring to as combat loads.

A typhoon with 6 AAMs and one centerline tank is still no slouch. Then again, still waiting for further developments


Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 03:45
by spazsinbad
'zero-one' we can see you are not going to let this go. However - think about what was said by Billie the Flynn. And what was the response? Yes we need to know what Billie was actually saying in detail and we don't know. Then we see all kinds of detailed responses about other aircraft in whatever configuration by pilots who have not flown the F-35s in any configuration. However Billie the slow talker has said what he said - with his experience on a lot of other or similar aircraft etc. So ask him. And it is goodnight - from him - the funny guy with a serious face.

:doh: So - without revealing much at all - in the experienced opinion of Billie the Flynn - the F-35 ain't bad at all. :doh:


Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 05:08
by aaam
bring_it_on wrote:
But sadly Block III, which was to overcome the performance deficiencies of AIM-9X relative to other missiles of its class and was also primarily for the F-35, is being canceled


I don't think it is sad at all. There is a serious look taking place into how to arm 5th generation fleet into the 20's, 30's and beyond. General Hostage eluded to it..The T3 fired at least 7 missiles at live targets...Although the Aim-9X blk. III would have been a great weapon with a new motor, but I feel the money is better spent on something like the CUDA that provides impressive magazine depth. The Aim-9X would have been one solution but the JSF would have to give up arguably its greatest asset in stealth to carry it. Far better to think long term and design something that works in the bays.

The way I saw it the block III sidewinder would have been extremely helpful to the F-18E/F and the F-15C fleets given that they are slated to get the IRST and could have deployed such a weapon in RF degraded environment using that sensor at medium ranges. In all honesty the Aim-9X blk. III for the F-35 was a 4th generation solution to 5th generation fighter needs...Great as a "patch" but poor from the long term planning point of view. What the F-35 needs in the long term is a 6 AMRAAM capability, perhaps an IR AMRAAM and a CUDA - class missile ...

Don't think the USN has given up on the block III, expect something to happen in the next few years once the budget mess subsides.



Here's your problem: Regardless of who wins the election next year, it's going to be a long time before any clean sheet design could be fielded, even if a candidate favorable to the idea is elected. And if one who isn't, is (draw your own conclusions), it could be decades. The JADM experience is instructive. Meanwhile, one of the main problems JADM & AIM-9X Block III were intended to deal with should arrive early next decade, about the time of Block III's IOC.

Not sure what you meant by, "in all honesty the Aim-9X blk. III for the F-35 was a 4th generation solution to 5th generation fighter needs". Yeah, it wouldn't be as good as an all-new missile, but the likelihood of that is slim for now. So nowwe have nothing. To quote the great Admiral Gorshkov, "Better is the enemy of good enough".


Regarding 6 AIM-120 capability, the F-35 bay can actually hold 8. However, the launcher module necessary to accomplish this was never pursued. Some speculated because at the time an unnamed service didn't want F-35 to have too much A2A capability lest it threaten funding for F-22. "...the budget mess subsides."? Here's hoping. Don't forget USN has cut its planned 2016-20 by almost a third, and this was one of the reasons behind Block III's cancellation.

Regarding USN and Block III, after a certain point in time it becomes not worth it to revive it. The same Block III arriving in 2028-29 is not as cost effective as one arriving in 2023-24

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 07:54
by popcorn
Apologies if this has been posted somewhere previously. A former Tornado driver weighs in on the issue but be warned, he works for LM :shock:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... erent.html

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 08:27
by spazsinbad
The FIVE PAGE test pilot report that is under discussion here is now available from AvWeak here: (0.3Mb PDF) and it is text readable which makes copy/paste to quote from it easy. LINK to it is from the story below from ASPI:

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... euvers.pdf

HAH - this PDF was on AvWeak story all along - I missed it - too much speed reading... & BS B/S makes me Bilious. :devil:

NOT quoted in the article excerpts below is this oldie but a goldie : http://whythef35.blogspot.com.au/2012/0 ... -f-35.html
F-35 versus F-16: who wins? Who cares?
7 Jul 2015 Andrew Davies | ASPI | The Strategist

"...it seems that there was a strong element of confirmation bias at work as well. If you already thought the F-35 was a dog (not entirely a bad thing to be in a dogfight, but I digress), then this report confirmed it. But a careful reading suggests that the flight controls of the F-35 involved were software limited to a point where it was effectively handicapped out of the fight. That’s why the recommendations made at the end of the report read like this:

• Increasing pitch rate would provide the pilot more options

• Consider increasing alpha onset

• Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority

And that’s why an Aviation Week piece a couple of months ago ( http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers ) about the same trial—which was picked up by Lockheed Martin’s PR team as a positive story— [ https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-fl ... maneuvers/ ] noted that the aircraft ‘can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option’. Simply put, we don’t yet know what the relative manoeuvrability of the F-35 to the F-16 is, only what that particular software load allowed. (And even when we do know, the significance will be limited for the reasons mentioned earlier.) I notice that there are now some ‘second generation articles’ [ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the- ... y-an-f-16/ ] that have picked up on the same observation. (You can get an F-16 pilot’s perspective here. http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-1 ... e-garbage/ )

In an interesting incidental commentary, most of those contrarian articles say something along the lines of ‘there are plenty of reasons to be critical of the F-35 program, but this isn’t one of them’. And that captures the problem about much of the public reporting on the F-35. The program has been running almost a decade and a half, with significant schedule slippages, engineering problems, software issues and cost overruns in its early years. The net effect has been to cost the Australian taxpayer many billions of dollars to establish an interim air combat capability. But much of the discussion has been about the wrong thing—yesterday’s concept of air warfare."

Source: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35-v ... who-cares/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 08:37
by geforcerfx
zero-one wrote:
popcorn wrote:My point exactly. The KPPs are well known to everyone connected wih the program, or should be. So when they talk about the F-35 specially in comparison with previous jets it's fair to assume they're comparing the KPP configurations and assume a legacy jet configured to most closely match the former ie. all dirtied up with stuff under the wings. Billy Flynn conscientuously mentioned
"combat payload' and I can easily envision instances when others may have failed to do so inadvertently in making public statements simply because for them it's a given but not so some in their audience who then reach all sorts of wrong conclusions. There would have been no intent to deceive or lie in such an instance and to attempt to do so would be folly in such a highly visible


I would like to think that "combat payload" means at tactical maneuvering configuration. They were not specific on that.

There is a demo of a Typhoon carrying 2 EFTs, 4 eggs and 4 AAMs and it's maneuverability was appalling. I hope that thats not what they were referring to as combat loads.

A typhoon with 6 AAMs and one centerline tank is still no slouch. Then again, still waiting for further developments


Wouldn't the performance deteriorate at higher altitudes on a loaded eurofighter quicker then a clean eurofighter (or insert 4th aircraft here). Down low the engines are performing best and the wing is making the most lift. Would the lower drag at higher altitude be enough to compensate lower engine performance and less lift? If I am thinking right then that video doesn't show a whole lot since that show never really broke 5,000ft, wheres most fighters expect a fight around 20,000+, if I am wrong then I am :D

Also now that the Aim-9x Block III has been canceled I am very pro ASRAMM for the USA, it going to be implemented already on the F-35, had better kinematics and more growth potential there while also still being a slightly US made product (same seaker as the Aim-9 right?)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 10:28
by bring_it_on
Regardless of who wins the election next year, it's going to be a long time before any clean sheet design could be fielded, even if a candidate favorable to the idea is elected.


A clean sheet design for what? A fighter or a missile? I was referring to the latter, and the USAF does have plans to field a SACM class weapon in the medium term.

Meanwhile, one of the main problems JADM & AIM-9X Block III were intended to deal with should arrive early next decade, about the time of Block III's IOC.


I believe you are referring to RF denied environments? or at least contested environments. In this case the F-35 should do well thanks to its jam resistant AESA, and the EW suite. Where the block III would have been really helpful would have been for the legacy super hornet that gets a functioning IRST by the end of the decade.

Not sure what you meant by, "in all honesty the Aim-9X blk. III for the F-35 was a 4th generation solution to 5th generation fighter needs". Yeah, it wouldn't be as good as an all-new missile, but the likelihood of that is slim for now. So nowwe have nothing. To quote the great Admiral Gorshkov, "Better is the enemy of good enough".


In order for the F-35 pilot to carry the block III sidewinder he has to say bye bye to stealth from the moment he departs for the sortie...You basically have to surrender your biggest advantage in combat with the F-35 every time you strap on that missile. A true 5th generation solution would be something that maintains the LO profile without sacrificing capability. One of the areas the ADI is looking into is weapons, this was claimed by Arati Prabhakaran a couple of years ago, and Lockheed has admitted that the CUDA is an ADI proposal. Just because little is happening above the water, does not mean nothing is happening in the dark.

Regarding 6 AIM-120 capability, the F-35 bay can actually hold 8. However, the launcher module necessary to accomplish this was never pursued. Some speculated because at the time an unnamed service didn't want F-35 to have too much A2A capability lest it threaten funding for F-22. "...the budget mess subsides."? Here's hoping. Don't forget USN has cut its planned 2016-20 by almost a third, and this was one of the reasons behind Block III's cancellation.


Got anything to substantiate the 8 missile claim?

Here's hoping. Don't forget USN has cut its planned 2016-20 by almost a third, and this was one of the reasons behind Block III's cancellation.


Rather than " a 1/3" a number would be good to see how many aircraft have they actually cut!!!

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 12:35
by madrat
Does the flight simulator allow current or projected control responses?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 14:07
by zero-one
Reading the Conclusions and Recomendations page, these caught my attention

LM wrote:
CONCLUSION
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
-The
F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn that it isn't anideal regime.


by "turning" does he mean turning in general or just high AOA turning.

LM wrote:Pitch rates were too slow to prosecute or deny weapons. Loads remained below limits and implied that
there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe.


By this he probably meant that the F-35 remained below G limits, then what did Doc Nelson say about him having "No limits"

LM wrote:Increasing pitch rate and available Nz would provide the pilot more options,
especially considering the inherent energy deficit.


So was the F-35 energy deficit even at low AOA? and what is "Nz" by the way?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 16:36
by geforcerfx
zero-one wrote:
LM wrote:Pitch rates were too slow to prosecute or deny weapons. Loads remained below limits and implied that
there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe.


By this he probably meant that the F-35 remained below G limits, then what did Doc Nelson say about him having "No limits"


wasn't the Fleet under flight restrictions from the June fire? Maybe AF-2 was not for the test and was just under airframe/software limits?
zero-one wrote:

LM wrote:Increasing pitch rate and available Nz would provide the pilot more options,
especially considering the inherent energy deficit.


So was the F-35 energy deficit even at low AOA? and what is "Nz" by the way?


"Since the aircraft seemed to fight best near 20 degrees, controls should not be blended in this region"
page 3 last paragraph

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 16:36
by spazsinbad
madrat wrote:Does the flight simulator allow current or projected control responses?

Recently the USMC FMSs at YUMA were updated to 2B software for their IOC and an oldie artickle from the DAVE + stuff.
F-35 Training System, Logistic System Ready for Operations
30 Jun 2015 LM PR

"...Similarly, the F-35 Training System’s simulator holds truer to its real-life counterpart, thanks to the latest Block 2B software. The software is used in the actual jets and in the simulators, providing the most accurate information possible.

“It’s very accurate in regards to the visuals and the types of simulations that can be done,” said Capt. John Stuart, an F-35B pilot with VMFA-121. “Getting training in division [FOUR AIRCRAFT] and sections [TWO AIRCRAFT] is something that is a very high value with regards to saving money and getting good, real-time debriefing capabilities from a pilot at the console who is monitoring the simulator.”..."

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-tr ... operations

Simulator Brings New Level Of Realism to F-35 Training
28 Nov 2011 DAVE MAJUMDAR

"... the simulation is highly realistic because not only does the F-35 FMS use the real aircraft's Operational Flight Program (OFP)...

..."The sim uses that exact aero-model."

The result is that "it flies identical" to the real jet, Smith said. Additionally, it has the same engine model as the real plane.

"To the max extent possible, they put the real software that's in the jet in the sim," he said..."

Source: http://archive.defensenews.com/article/ ... 5-Training

Training central: Lockheed Martin prepares for F-35 JSF Training
16 Nov 2007 Graham Warwick

"...Instead of waiting until the aircraft is developed to get the flight software, the training team is receiving software drops as new versions are released by the air vehicle team. Puglisi says this is "a tremendous help in reducing risk"...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... sf-219642/

Lockheed Martin Delivers First F-35 Full Mission Simulator to Eglin Air Force Base
18 Apr 2011 LM PR

"...In all F-35 simulators, actual aircraft software is used to give pilots the most realistic experience and allow software upgrades in step with the F-35 development...."

Source: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... F-FMS.html

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 16:59
by blindpilot
I'll let the fighter/instructor/RF type guys answer specifically, but I'll provide comment on general Aero theory.

Energy advantage/disadvantage is ALWAYS circumstantial and conditional, even with a Cessna 150 versus an F-15 ACTIVE.
(Cessna at 14,000 feet and 125 mph, F-15 landing overweight, all trash down at sea level, engines spooling to idle etc. etc.).
(If the Cessna fires a Stinger ATAS at this point it would probably win).

All information available in the report indicates the F-35 was at High AOA and likely fairly low speed envelope areas. The question at hand was likely, "can you quickly point the nose on target in those conditions? Would the aircraft suddenly depart (stall and spin) when the pilot tried to execute that response? Are the safety limits in the software set appropriately."

The software comes in with designed control surface limits. The F-16 for example is "limited" in its AOA even with the latest super variants. That's a software limit. Those are the parameters they are looking at and setting with F-35 testing.

The conclusions from the test/report indicate a few things. As set,
1. Software limits, for example AOA onset rate and controls are "too mushy" for successfully engaging the test target (F-16 cleared to max performance).
2. As set the limits did not stress the airframe nor pilot, nor threaten flight departure.
3. Recommend those limits be adjusted to reflect the findings above.

Now as to advantage/disadvantage in general aircraft capabilities. If the F-16 is at sea level and 250 knots, loaded with 10,000 lbs of carry back bombs at near full fuel load, and the F-35 is cruising at half fuel, internal missiles only, at Mach 1.6 and 50,000 feet, The F-35 would have the energy advantage, and could wax the F-16 much as the Cessna above took out the F-15 ACTIVE. That's the short answer to all these questions.

To questions not being asked with this test, in similar energy states, such as same altitude, speed, weights and drag, it would depend on the actual condition and design flight envelopes of the aircraft. As with all fighters, based on optimum design altitude/speeds, one would generally be better than the other in different parts of the envelope. Fighter pilots tend to try and nudge enemy pilots into their best envelope states. IE. "come up here and fight with me!" ... "No! you come down here and fight!"

This test was designed to specifically look at a specific flight envelope for the test aircraft. IE. the F-35. The target (F-16) was exactly that, a target, for the test aircraft to use to test its limits.

We can take two things from this report. First eventually they will probably relax limits to improve maneuver and energy state options. BUT TWO - This is not necessarily a high priority, since other things, like sensor and weapon improvements will effect results far more than the yank and bank, jerk and point.

Finally once the design matures, we'll have data on envelope performance, and F-35 pilots like every other type's pilots before them will map out advantageous flight regimes, and train to exploit those advantages, and avoid disadvantages. In all likelihood, these will not be in a level flight, 9 G, 20 minute tail chase - for any 21st century fighter!

BP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 17:40
by vilters
Without knowing the ROE's or the flight details, there is little to comment on.

ROE's !
Our ennemies fight without ROE's. => IS nor Al Q fight by rules nor ROE's. => They shoot, period.

ROE's are things we invented to make our life hard, or to prove a point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A true engagement would be an unsheduled encounter WITHOUT any ROE's .

Get a F-35 and an F-16 airborne, and tell them that they will "get together somewhere".

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 17:42
by spazsinbad
UhOH - BS again.... THIS IS a long post - best READ at source.
Behind That F-35 Air Combat Report
06 Jul 2015 Bill Sweetman

"Last week's leak of a report by a test pilot on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) team would have raised much less of a ruckus had it not been for earlier statements from program people.....

...Goure, Linstead and Flynn seem to be on opposite sides of the same debate, one that started about 30 years ago as fighter traditionalists and stealth purists fought tooth and nail over the requirements for the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF). One group argued that stealth air combat was like submarine warfare - "the last thing you want to do is surface and use the deck gun" - while the others, with the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile still in development, maintained that there would always be leakers who survived the first beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile exchange and closed within visual range (WVR) where radar stealth would be irrelevant....

...The JSF is not as agile, but program leaders say that it will prevail in BVR because of stealth and situational awareness, and in WVR it will use its 360-deg. target-tracking device- the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) - to cue high-off-boresight air-to-air missiles (AAM) on to its adversaries.

What they don't say as loudly is that it can't do both, at least on the same mission. Unlike the F-22 (and the Chengdu J-20 and Sukhoi T-50) it doesn't have side bays and trapezes for rail-launched AAMs. If the F-35 carries AIM-9s it does so externally, and by Lockheed Martin's own definition it is not stealthy.

This is not an accident, or even a matter of program execution. The F-35 was "70% air-to-ground and 30% air-to-air" at its inception - a direct quote from George Muellner, who was in charge of what was then the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program in 1995. The U.S. Air Force, as the biggest customer, called the shots on the requirement....

...Not surprisingly, then, many engagements have been decided BVR; and adversaries have been given cause to believe that any attempt to get into a WVR engagement is likely to be fatal. But that kind of imbalance is not an eternal reality. Dan Goure's reaction to the F-35's possible lack of agility may be "I say, good," but he's not flying it in combat, is he?" [So BS may well ask those current F-35 pilots what they think - and we know they and the program are not talking to him. I'm not weeping for BS - who - AFAIK has not and is not intending to 'fly in combat' - and we know the current crop of pilots that have flown the F-35 are impressed OR AM I TODALLY RONG and a DANCING FOOL?]

Source: http://aviationweek.com/blog/behind-f-3 ... bat-report

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 18:02
by spazsinbad
madrat wrote:Does the flight simulator allow current or projected control responses?

Perhaps there is confusion about what F-35 test pilots are able to use? These F-35 test pilots have simulators which can be configured on the ground to simulate new control laws so that they are tested on the ground. Some flight test aircraft have 'paddles' which allow the laws/controls to be changed inflight to some extent that is deemed safe - for test purposes. F-35 test pilots are able to rehearse their tests in these simulators and rehearse their response if there is a problem.
Tailored to Trap
01 Dec 2012 Frank Colucci

"...…Unlike production F-35s, the JSF SDD aircraft have a Flight Test Aid (FTA) system that allows pilots to evaluate
different control gains and mechanizations in flight. Using FTAs, for example, pilots were able to look at IDLC gains of 150 percent, 200 percent and 300 percent of the original baseline gain, eventually settling on 300 percent.

“We can do this safely, because if we ever see anything we don’t like, we can press a paddle switch on the stick to put us immediately back to the baseline control law,” said Canin. Since F-35 production software and test software are the same, LRIP aircraft will actually have the FTAs incorporated but no FTA switch with which to activate them...."

Source: http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... 77964.html

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 18:18
by rpgrynn
vilters wrote:Without knowing the ROE's or the flight details, there is little to comment on.

ROE's !
Our ennemies fight without ROE's. => IS nor Al Q fight by rules nor ROE's. => They shoot, period.

ROE's are things we invented to make our life hard, or to prove a point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A true engagement would be an unsheduled encounter WITHOUT any ROE's .

Get a F-35 and an F-16 airborne, and tell them that they will "get together somewhere".


The DT flight was equivalent to an automotive "Skid Pad" test of a 2017 Chevy Camaro to assist in flight control optimization only. AF-02 is a “Flight Science” Jet – It’s not going to “Red Flag” anytime soon.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 19:12
by aaam
bring_it_on wrote:
Regardless of who wins the election next year, it's going to be a long time before any clean sheet design could be fielded, even if a candidate favorable to the idea is elected.


A clean sheet design for what? A fighter or a missile? I was referring to the latter, and the USAF does have plans to field a SACM class weapon in the medium term.

Meanwhile, one of the main problems JADM & AIM-9X Block III were intended to deal with should arrive early next decade, about the time of Block III's IOC.


I believe you are referring to RF denied environments? or at least contested environments. In this case the F-35 should do well thanks to its jam resistant AESA, and the EW suite. Where the block III would have been really helpful would have been for the legacy super hornet that gets a functioning IRST by the end of the decade.

Not sure what you meant by, "in all honesty the Aim-9X blk. III for the F-35 was a 4th generation solution to 5th generation fighter needs". Yeah, it wouldn't be as good as an all-new missile, but the likelihood of that is slim for now. So nowwe have nothing. To quote the great Admiral Gorshkov, "Better is the enemy of good enough".


In order for the F-35 pilot to carry the block III sidewinder he has to say bye bye to stealth from the moment he departs for the sortie...You basically have to surrender your biggest advantage in combat with the F-35 every time you strap on that missile. A true 5th generation solution would be something that maintains the LO profile without sacrificing capability. One of the areas the ADI is looking into is weapons, this was claimed by Arati Prabhakaran a couple of years ago, and Lockheed has admitted that the CUDA is an ADI proposal. Just because little is happening above the water, does not mean nothing is happening in the dark.

Regarding 6 AIM-120 capability, the F-35 bay can actually hold 8. However, the launcher module necessary to accomplish this was never pursued. Some speculated because at the time an unnamed service didn't want F-35 to have too much A2A capability lest it threaten funding for F-22. "...the budget mess subsides."? Here's hoping. Don't forget USN has cut its planned 2016-20 by almost a third, and this was one of the reasons behind Block III's cancellation.


Got anything to substantiate the 8 missile claim?

Here's hoping. Don't forget USN has cut its planned 2016-20 by almost a third, and this was one of the reasons behind Block III's cancellation.


Rather than " a 1/3" a number would be good to see how many aircraft have they actually cut!!!


Taking your questions in order:

Yes, I know you were talking about a missile, so was I. Yes, AF has produced some graphics years ago (I'm including one below dating from 2011) showing showing they have "plans". Everyone has "plans" and wish lists. However, do we see any actual work or development taking place? Seeing as it was going to be another eight years before AIM-9X Block III (using the already developed Block II electronics) would have deployed, it is unrealistic to assume that a totally new missile could be available in the same time frame. We're probably looking at the of the next decade, which was my point.It also depends on the US elections next year. Again, the JADM experience is instructive.

Actually, the impetus for Block III was to counter the effects of an adversary jamming not the F-35's radar (although they'd certainly be trying to do that), but to counter the effects of digital radio frequency memory jammers against the AIM-120's onboard radar. Secondarily to get longer range and bring its aerodynamic performance up to comparable missiles of this class. Where this would also be a great benefit to allow the F-35 to make full use of it's DAS. While it might have 360 degree situational awareness, AIM-9X does not presently have the performance to fully exploit it.

Regarding the reduction in stealth capability, everything's a tradeoff. it was never intended for the F-35 to be a B-2, or even a F-22 in regards to stealth, especially from the rear. And if you're carrying external weapons, which all users especially the USMC, plan to do you're not operating in the pure stealth mode anyway. Add in degredation of the stealth coatings in an operational environment and many (including the Brits and other potential foreign customers) figure it's worth it. Not every mission is going to be "first day of war", where you give up a lot for maximum stealth.

There may indeed be something being worked on in the dark, but one can't count on it. Besides, to get it integrated on systems(especially on the F-35 and F-22 where the software changes tend to be massive) we'd be be seeing at least some hints by now. What is going on with CUDA since Lockheed's announcement, anyway?

The eight missile option comes from earlier concepts in the program, never pursued. Remember, the F-35's total internal weapons bay size is bigger than that of the F-22.

OK. Last year the USN's 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program planned for 54 F-35Cs to be bought. In this year's FYDP for 2016-2020, the total is down to 38. That's a cut of 30% or "almost a third". The Program Office hopes the Navy cuts can be offset by international sales.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 20:09
by geforcerfx
"This is not an accident, or even a matter of program execution. The F-35 was "70% air-to-ground and 30% air-to-air" at its inception - a direct quote from George Muellner, who was in charge of what was then the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program in 1995. The U.S. Air Force, as the biggest customer, called the shots on the requirement...."


Well how much time do f-16, f/a-18, and av-8's spend doing air to ground. We know just from there naming f/a-18s were designed as a naval attack aircraft that coukd also be a fighter, and the harrier has spent almost all if it's us career as a strike/CAS aircraft. Most f-16s I see flying have bombs and fuel tanks not just a tank and some missles. To me it makes sense to buid the aircraft to be focused on the mission it will spend the most time doing no?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 20:11
by spazsinbad
Another WiB missive with warmed over arguments we have all seen here before but hey - you asked for it....
The U.S. Air Force Promised the F-4 Would Never Dogfight
06 Jul 2015 DAVID AXE

"Now it’s saying the same thing about the F-35...." {PUHLEEZ - I rest me case m'lud - PUHLEEZ}

Source: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u- ... 1a66da4e73

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 20:26
by johnwill
zero-one wrote:So was the F-35 energy deficit even at low AOA? and what is "Nz" by the way?


"Nz" means acceleration in the z axis. That is what most people call "g"

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 20:31
by zero-one
Hopefully the JPO will have some sense knocked into them and finally give some details of the F-35's kinematic performance.
And not the typical, "it matches any 4th generation fighter" crap, as 4th gens themselves don't match each other,

a Mirage 2000 is a 4th gen with pretty lousy performance compared to an F-16 or Typhoon.

They've released good statements in Janes, why can't they do it on more mainstream media?

Besides if kinematics isn't really as important as it used to be (which I do believe). Why are they still so strict about E-M charts?

They don't need to show everything, just the 15,000 feet envelope of AF-2 against an F-16 perhaps.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 20:43
by optimist
zero-one wrote:They don't need to show everything, just the 15,000 feet envelope of AF-2 against an F-16 perhaps.

I don't think they will have the envelope mapped until they finish with the FCS.
They have given acceleration and sustained turn, if Bowman's chart is read with it

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 20:59
by bumtish
spazsinbad wrote:UhOH - BS again.... THIS IS a long post - best READ at source.
Behind That F-35 Air Combat Report
06 Jul 2015 Bill Sweetman

This is not an accident, or even a matter of program execution. The F-35 was "70% air-to-ground and 30% air-to-air" at its inception - a direct quote from George Muellner, who was in charge of what was then the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program in 1995. The U.S. Air Force, as the biggest customer, called the shots on the requirement....

Source: http://aviationweek.com/blog/behind-f-3 ... bat-report


What did Muellner mean by that? A multirole fighter will almost by default have ~30%* of its mission types as counter air. And during JAST USAF wanted a multirole fighter (strike).

EDIT: I doubt they were looking at the minutae of the aero parameters at that point (JAST), but rather at top-level requirements like mission types which the combat aircraft should be tasked with. I leave it for others to research/confirm, too little time for me. But an interesting question.

*e.g. page 16 on http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Dutc ... n_2009.pdf

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 22:33
by aaam
bumtish wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:UhOH - BS again.... THIS IS a long post - best READ at source.
Behind That F-35 Air Combat Report
06 Jul 2015 Bill Sweetman

This is not an accident, or even a matter of program execution. The F-35 was "70% air-to-ground and 30% air-to-air" at its inception - a direct quote from George Muellner, who was in charge of what was then the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program in 1995. The U.S. Air Force, as the biggest customer, called the shots on the requirement....

Source: http://aviationweek.com/blog/behind-f-3 ... bat-report


What did Muellner mean by that? A multirole fighter will almost by default have ~30%* of its mission types as counter air. And during JAST USAF wanted a multirole fighter (strike).

EDIT: I doubt they were looking at the minutae of the aero parameters at that point (JAST), but rather at top-level requirements like mission types which the combat aircraft should be tasked with. I leave it for others to research/confirm, too little time for me. But an interesting question.

*e.g. page 16 on http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Dutc ... n_2009.pdf


JAST was not meant to be a single aircraft, but rather a collection of technologies (engine, some avionics, etc.) that could be shared among multiple future types. It was DoD and Congress that morphed that into the "something for everyone" JSF where one aircraft would have to handle multiple diverse roles for multiple services, and arguably that is the Genesis of the F-35's problems.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 22:46
by aaam
geforcerfx wrote:"This is not an accident, or even a matter of program execution. The F-35 was "70% air-to-ground and 30% air-to-air" at its inception - a direct quote from George Muellner, who was in charge of what was then the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program in 1995. The U.S. Air Force, as the biggest customer, called the shots on the requirement...."


Well how much time do f-16, f/a-18, and av-8's spend doing air to ground. We know just from there naming f/a-18s were designed as a naval attack aircraft that coukd also be a fighter, and the harrier has spent almost all if it's us career as a strike/CAS aircraft. Most f-16s I see flying have bombs and fuel tanks not just a tank and some missles. To me it makes sense to build the aircraft to be focused on the mission it will spend the most time doing no?


F/A-18 was originally to be two distinct versions of the same baseline aircraft. The F-18 was to replace the F-4 with less capability than the F-14, but less cost. The A-18 was to replace the A-7, partly because there wasn't a requirement for enough F-18s alone to make it an economic exercise. The decision was made early in development to combine them into a compromise F/A-18. In the case of the AV-8, CAS is what it was designed to do. It can also do strike, but that's secondary.

You can't go by naming. USAF does not like the designator "A" for attack. To them all tactical weapons carrying aircraft are Fighters. When they do use the A designator, it's almost always for political reasons (A-26, A-37, A-10) or because they're buying a plane developed and brought into service by the Navy (A-1, A-7). If either the Navy or the Marines had been the lead service on the JSF, I'll wager it would have been designated the the A-14/AV-14 or somesuch, which is actually more reflective of its role.

USAF is using F-16s in bombing roles because it's got a lot of them; makes sense.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2015, 23:50
by bumtish
aaam wrote:
JAST was not meant to be a single aircraft, but rather a collection of technologies (engine, some avionics, etc.) that could be shared among multiple future types. It was DoD and Congress that morphed that into the "something for everyone" JSF where one aircraft could handle multiple diverse roles for multiple services, and arguably that is the Genesis of the F-35's problems.


Thanks for input. While I do not look to delve into the many "arguables" I was curious if the specific statement by Muellner supports the "flawed from gestation" narrative as it does in Sweetmans blog posting.

In lieu of doing extensive searching and reading, I got the idea to verify the date of the quote. Sweetman writes elsewhere under the title JSF Office Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse that

At the inception of the JSF program, in 1995, then-project director George Muellner described the aircraft as “70% air-to-ground, 30% air-to-air.”


Thus, it predates the various JIRDs where top-level trade-off analysis were done for the JSF. Obviously, Muellner is not stating on basis of what the requirements (including aero) ended up being for the JSF. I propose he was basing it on the framework of reconciled/shared mission sets set out by the three services used to direct the JAST technology/industry effort...

2c

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 00:33
by aaam
bumtish wrote:
aaam wrote:
JAST was not meant to be a single aircraft, but rather a collection of technologies (engine, some avionics, etc.) that could be shared among multiple future types. It was DoD and Congress that morphed that into the "something for everyone" JSF where one aircraft could handle multiple diverse roles for multiple services, and arguably that is the Genesis of the F-35's problems.


Thanks for input. While I do not look to delve into the many "arguables" I was curious if the specific statement by Muellner supports the "flawed from gestation" narrative as it does in Sweetmans blog posting.

In lieu of doing extensive searching and reading, I got the idea to verify the date of the quote. Sweetman writes elsewhere under the title JSF Office Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse that

At the inception of the JSF program, in 1995, then-project director George Muellner described the aircraft as “70% air-to-ground, 30% air-to-air.”


Thus, it predates the various JIRDs where top-level trade-off analysis were done for the JSF. Obviously, Muellner is not stating on basis of what the requirements (including aero) ended up being for the JSF. I propose he was basing it on the framework of reconciled/shared mission sets set out by the three services used to direct the JAST technology/industry effort...

2c


IIRC:

USAF was looking towards an aircraft to replace A-10s and F-16s. Attack (but AF wouldn't call it that) with secondary fighter capability, but not capability so good that it might threaten funding for the F-22. Stealth was also desired, with less maintenance than required for the F-22 and B-2. Navy wanted a long range all-weather medium strike aircraft with more capable avionics, self defence capability and stealth capable of being maintained in a maritime environment, to perform the job that was to have been handled by the [canceled] A-6F, [canceled] A-12, and [canceled} A-X--A/FX. The Marines, who were dragged into the final program, were looking for a STOVL attack aircraft with better range/payload/endurance, easier to fly and lower cost to operate than the AV-8B, but still be capable of operating from all the areas Harriers could. JAST became JSF, a single aircraft with three versions that were to have the maximum commonality. Since USAF was going to be buying by far the lion's share, its needs were to be basis for the aircraft, modified as necessary for the other services.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 07:29
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:UhOH - BS again.... THIS IS a long post - best READ at source.
By BS standards, that wasn't bad. To sum up...


-Some of the more-enthusiastic JSF supporters are trying to spin the situation. Gotta give him that one, though I would also add that the Axe pieces are mainly intended for idiots (even Sweetman seems to know better); ergo, said spin by program proponents is merely pandering to idiots.

-The argument between kinematics and systems is old and far from settled. Again, he's kinda right; but he seems to assume that an eject-launch LOAL missile is a physical impossibility. It isn't; there's just no urgent requirement right now.

-The JSF was never intended for primary use as an A2A platform. Okay, he's right again; but he leaves out half the story. True, the USAF wanted a more usable F-117, but he left out the fact that the F-16, vaunted dogfighter it was, had long since become primarily an A2G asset with upgrades for it directed mainly in that direction.

-The past 30 years of air-combat have been misleading because material advantage was always lopsided in Western favor. This part is just flat-out wrong; I hardly even know where to start. What we have here is a failure to understand theory vs execution. For example: Vietnam, where execution of restrictive ROEs negated the theory of missile-combat as it was understood back then. F-16s loaded down with bombs would have been just as vulnerable to Mig-21s as the F-105s were. Conversely, F-4s equipped with AMRAAMs would have been way more effective than the Sparrow-armed Phantoms of the time. So which technology/doctorine ended up being more worthy of pursuit? In the end, older types equipped with AIM-120s went longer in useful service than F-16s equipped for WVR-only.

-...the West has never faced the Sukhoi family, and the most modern Russian fighter to have been encountered is the early-model MiG-29... I would rephrase this as "the Sukhoi family has never faced the West." For starters, the Mig-29 (early model or otherwise) is no slouch; in fact, Western pundits used to cry about how it was so much better than anything we had. Second, in the Flanker's one foray into combat (vs the Mig-29 interestingly), Russian BVR missiles (also once pronounced superior by western pundits) proved to be a complete wash.

In conclusion, Sweetman's piece is, as usual, reaching hard for new and interesting ways to to question the obvious. Imagine a sports-writer analyzing the lopsided victory of a 240lb boxer over a 120lb opponent in terms of, "well what if the 240lb guy was only 115lbs?" Well a$$hole, he wasn't now, was he?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 08:22
by hb_pencil
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:UhOH - BS again.... THIS IS a long post - best READ at source.
By BS standards, that wasn't bad. To sum up...


I kinda agree. But there is one point I really dislike.

lookieloo wrote:-...the West has never faced the Sukhoi family, and the most modern Russian fighter to have been encountered is the early-model MiG-29... I would rephrase this as "the Sukhoi family has never faced the West." For starters, the Mig-29 (early model or otherwise) is no slouch; in fact, Western pundits used to cry about how it was so much better than anything we had. Second, in the Flanker's one foray into combat (vs the Mig-29 interestingly), Russian BVR missiles (also once pronounced superior by western pundits) proved to be a complete wash.


So my problem here is that this is oblivious to the vast intelligence gathering efforts that the U.S. has conducted in this area over the past 40 years. Its such a contrast to the publication of David Hoffman's "The Billion dollar Spy" about the exploits of Adolpf Tolkachev, who basically gave the West access to a wide variety of advanced Soviet weaponry in the 1980s.

Thing is, Russia is no longer an closed society: its much easier to conduct espionage, especially in the internet age. To give a personal anecdote, I went to a recent family wedding where an individual there (who has been living in the west for a decade) was once a senior engineer on one of Russia's most advanced weapons... I had a great time picking his brain about the system. So its much easier to obtain contacts or data. I would also say that from my personal professional experience, Russian systems are not nearly as advanced as the Kremlin would like us to believe. Sure there are areas of excellence, but so much remains stuck in 1990, which is covered up by smoke and mirrors.

Regardless, the US still regularly has access to Su-27s through allies, and there is even talk that the successor to the 4477th Squadron flies them in Nevada. That means we're taking them apart and seeing how they operate. Its the reason you see in Red Flag and other exercises the U.S. provides realistic training environments with simulations of real world threats: its based on this espionage. Its also guided the F-35's development.

Sweetman portrays himself as some sort of expert on this, by claiming that we're somehow not prepared for the threat we face. I suggest the people that actually work on this area, armed with the classified data are the ones who should be telling us this, not him. Really its is an appeal to some nebulous, difficult to determine threat in order to justify his rapidly eroding foundational view that the F-35 is a disaster.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 08:33
by spazsinbad
Above 'hb_pencil' said: "...Sweetman portrays himself as some sort of expert on this, by claiming that we're somehow not prepared for the threat we face. I suggest the people that actually work on this area, armed with the classified data are the ones who should be telling us this, not him. Really its is an appeal to some nebulous, difficult to determine threat in order to justify his rapidly eroding foundational view that the F-35 is a disaster."

This sort of claim by BS is par for the course - he knows he knows so much because no one in the F-35 program briefs him these days because he knows he knows so much: THIS CLAIM BY BS IS SO LAUGHABLE:

"...Military people who are not cleared into intelligence often do not see much of what foreign counterparts are doing, aside from occasional and limited exchange tours. [SOB SOB BS is not cleared into any F-35 intel] It is also an object lesson to be cautious when anyone tries to sell you anything with the help of that much-abused word “unique,” and to be skeptical of terms (like “fourth-generation”) that imply that a 25-year-old F-16 and an F3R-standard Rafale are somehow the same.""

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27383&p=294458&hilit=Sweetman#p294458

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 09:04
by Corsair1963
aaam wrote:
bumtish wrote:
aaam wrote:
JAST was not meant to be a single aircraft, but rather a collection of technologies (engine, some avionics, etc.) that could be shared among multiple future types. It was DoD and Congress that morphed that into the "something for everyone" JSF where one aircraft could handle multiple diverse roles for multiple services, and arguably that is the Genesis of the F-35's problems.


Thanks for input. While I do not look to delve into the many "arguables" I was curious if the specific statement by Muellner supports the "flawed from gestation" narrative as it does in Sweetmans blog posting.

In lieu of doing extensive searching and reading, I got the idea to verify the date of the quote. Sweetman writes elsewhere under the title JSF Office Makes Buyers an Offer They Cannot Refuse that

At the inception of the JSF program, in 1995, then-project director George Muellner described the aircraft as “70% air-to-ground, 30% air-to-air.”


Thus, it predates the various JIRDs where top-level trade-off analysis were done for the JSF. Obviously, Muellner is not stating on basis of what the requirements (including aero) ended up being for the JSF. I propose he was basing it on the framework of reconciled/shared mission sets set out by the three services used to direct the JAST technology/industry effort...

2c


IIRC:

USAF was looking towards an aircraft to replace A-10s and F-16s. Attack (but AF wouldn't call it that) with secondary fighter capability, but not capability so good that it might threaten funding for the F-22. Stealth was also desired, with less maintenance than required for the F-22 and B-2. Navy wanted a long range all-weather medium strike aircraft with more capable avionics, self defence capability and stealth capable of being maintained in a maritime environment, to perform the job that was to have been handled by the [canceled] A-6F, [canceled] A-12, and [canceled} A-X--A/FX. The Marines, who were dragged into the final program, were looking for a STOVL attack aircraft with better range/payload/endurance, easier to fly and lower cost to operate than the AV-8B, but still be capable of operating from all the areas Harriers could. JAST became JSF, a single aircraft with three versions that were to have the maximum commonality. Since USAF was going to be buying by far the lion's share, its needs were to be basis for the aircraft, modified as necessary for the other services.


What a bunch of BS the F-35 is a Multi-Role Strike Fighter plain and simple. It was designed to perform the same role as Vipers and Super Hornets perform today. Just in a Stealthy Package combined with Sensor Fusion and intergraded into a vast Network. That said, while it's primary missions will be attack. (CAS, Interdiction, etc.) Nonetheless, it's just as capable of doing a whole host of missions just like todays Strike Fighters. Which, will include Air Superiority Mission, Escort, CAP, etc. etc.

Love the critics they want to try to spin the F-35 as a "Bomb Truck, Attack Fighter, A-35, or anything but a Fighter even if that is a Multi-Role Fighter. Sorry, hate to break it to you. Yet, that mouth wash isn't cutting it! :doh:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 09:29
by Corsair1963
aaam wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:"This is not an accident, or even a matter of program execution. The F-35 was "70% air-to-ground and 30% air-to-air" at its inception - a direct quote from George Muellner, who was in charge of what was then the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program in 1995. The U.S. Air Force, as the biggest customer, called the shots on the requirement...."


Well how much time do f-16, f/a-18, and av-8's spend doing air to ground. We know just from there naming f/a-18s were designed as a naval attack aircraft that coukd also be a fighter, and the harrier has spent almost all if it's us career as a strike/CAS aircraft. Most f-16s I see flying have bombs and fuel tanks not just a tank and some missles. To me it makes sense to build the aircraft to be focused on the mission it will spend the most time doing no?


F/A-18 was originally to be two distinct versions of the same baseline aircraft. The F-18 was to replace the F-4 with less capability than the F-14, but less cost. The A-18 was to replace the A-7, partly because there wasn't a requirement for enough F-18s alone to make it an economic exercise. The decision was made early in development to combine them into a compromise F/A-18. In the case of the AV-8, CAS is what it was designed to do. It can also do strike, but that's secondary.

You can't go by naming. USAF does not like the designator "A" for attack. To them all tactical weapons carrying aircraft are Fighters. When they do use the A designator, it's almost always for political reasons (A-26, A-37, A-10) or because they're buying a plane developed and brought into service by the Navy (A-1, A-7). If either the Navy or the Marines had been the lead service on the JSF, I'll wager it would have been designated the the A-14/AV-14 or somesuch, which is actually more reflective of its role.

USAF is using F-16s in bombing roles because it's got a lot of them; makes sense.


Sorry, no the Hornet was to designed as a Strike Fighter (Multi-Role) from the beginning. In the case of the USN it was going to replace the F-4 mainly in the Fighter Role and the A-7 mainly in the Attack Role. Nonetheless, your not totally wrong. When the Hornet was being developed by McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) it made an agreement with Northrop (now Northrop Grumman) that there would be two versions of the Hornet. One would be Carrier Based (Naval) F/A-18A/B built and marketed by McDonnell Douglas and the other a Land Based F-18L marketed by Northrop. Yet, the latter never came about as McDonnell Douglas won all of the export orders. Northrop sued in the end and did get $50 Million in Damages.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 09:35
by joost
What really strikes me is the free interpretation in the media about the report conclusions. I carefully read the report, which (as stated in detail above) tested some characteristics of AF-2 in engagements with a high AoA. Nowhere in the report it is stated that the F-35 "got waxed". A disadvantage is not the same as got killed. The test pilot reports recommendations to improve the ability for the F-35 to neutralize the disadvantages at high AoA and that is it.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 10:19
by Corsair1963
joost wrote:What really strikes me is the free interpretation in the media about the report conclusions. I carefully read the report, which (as stated in detail above) tested some characteristics of AF-2 in engagements with a high AoA. Nowhere in the report it is stated that the F-35 "got waxed". A disadvantage is not the same as got killed. The test pilot reports recommendations to improve the ability for the F-35 to neutralize the disadvantages at high AoA and that is it.



This quote from Forbes says it all...........


Outsiders seldom understand fighter development. Few people have actually read the F-35 chapter in the test director’s annual report, and fewer still have understood it. To grasp the full significance of what it says, you would first need to have some grounding in aeronautical engineering and operational testing. It would also be helpful to have some historical knowledge of how other major weapons systems have fared during development. Most of the reporters who cover the F-35 don’t have those insights, and so they tend to rely on other people to explain to them what documents like the test report indicate. Since the joint program office and contractors seldom are forthcoming on that front, journalists turn to the critics who, shockingly enough, render unduly alarming interpretations of what it all means.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps ... nt-matter/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 10:37
by joost
Good quote, thanks Corsair!

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 15:28
by bring_it_on
aaam wrote:Yes, AF has produced some graphics years ago (I'm including one below dating from 2011) showing showing they have "plans". Everyone has "plans" and wish lists. However, do we see any actual work or development taking place?


Most likely YES. The ADI was to look into and make those early investments into these sort of things and weapons and systems were the primary drivers not airframes. The investments were to be in the FY15 budget and beyond according to the DARPA boss and not all of them would be in the open budget documents. Lockheed has openly admitted and it has been reported that the CUDA is a specific weapon in support of the DARPA managed ADI (Read AvWeek's coverage from AFA a couple of years ago).

This year General Welsh (AFA-Orlando this year) also openly declared that he is trying to "revive the spirit of the systems command" (as the title of the article I posted around that time) and the first test-case for the new initiative would be for the development of weapons and munitions for the Air-Superiority 2030 program being run by the service. All these industry funed progams do not occur in a vacuum and in the absence of a proper defined, and somewhat funded roadmap. None of these capabilities simply show up but are a result of long term investments and capability developments. I have followed the JDRADM and T3 programs and the sub-contracts for these two efforts over the last decade...The building blocks for a considerably better capability have been quitely funded through concentrated and timely investments into the various components of these systems. It was no surprise that the CUDA was an industry funded program, revealed after DARPA's top boss highlighted weapons and systems as her target under the ADI...

aaam wrote:Seeing as it was going to be another eight years before AIM-9X Block III (using the already developed Block II electronics) would have deployed, it is unrealistic to assume that a totally new missile could be available in the same time frame.


Timelines are less important here. The Block III was a NAVAIR program that spent the amount as per its yearly budget and need. You do not have a pressing need to field something in 3 years, 4 years or 5 years. The JSF is a long term operational progam that will be in service till 2060 if not beyond that. The AIm-120D and Block II Winder are very potent weapons...Yeah the VFDR Aim-120 would be nice, but have you looked at the Russian inventory of R-77's?? Do they even have one?? Have you looked at the Chinese inventory of AESA radars??? Same with the Winder..Ideally you wouldnt mind investing billions to get something significantly better but does that fundamentally alter your overall ability to fight an air campaign and secure a victory?? As opposed to some other investments such as cruise missiles, hypersonics, directed energy or miniaturizing Precision munitions etc ??

aaam wrote: We're probably looking at the of the next decade, which was my point.It also depends on the US elections next year. Again, the JADM experience is instructive.


Elections are unlikely to have a significant impact (unless of course folks like O Mally or Sanders are elected the president)..Obama has sent a fairly substantial budget to the Congress that is beyond the sequester...Hillary is going to be stronger on national security (most predict that) if she is elected, and she will most likely have a better working relationship with the Congress..That is of course if the Dems win..If the Republicans win there should be some boost in spending but overall regardless of who wins the budgets arent getting slashed....

Also think outside of the FORUM mentality for a moment. How many F-35's would be operationally deployed by 2020? What fraction or percentage of the overall air force would the F-35 represent in 2020, 2025 and 2030. Long term solutions would be a pressing need when the stealth fleet is a substantial portion of the overall combat tactical fleet. Stealth by itself provides an enormous advantage and as the number rises you will see other areas advanced to exploit that advantage.



aaam wrote:Actually, the impetus for Block III was to counter the effects of an adversary jamming not the F-35's radar


And plenty of ways around that..The AN /APG 81 has performed extremely well in high threat JAMING environments..Do you want to carry a missile all the time on it, that basically does away its stealth??? Do you want it as a long term solution? How about improving the radar and the overall system and how it performs in a high threat environment or adding (as they are) the latest EPIP protection to the AIm-120D?? You cant have every progam i.e. fund 4 different missiles..If I have to pick and choose I'd rather go with something that works internally...A CUDA like WVR weapon for example..If you are designing something for the long term you have to think around that...and ask yourself " What will provide magazine depth, and be lethal" and an assett to my stealth fleet" not " what will be a band-aid solution and still take 8 years to show up".


If the enemy wants to go all out and use continuous jamming and bring the ASQ-236 into the picture then I am not sure the F-35 drivers will particularly mind that.

aaam wrote:Where this would also be a great benefit to allow the F-35 to make full use of it's DAS. While it might have 360 degree situational awareness, AIM-9X does not presently have the performance to fully exploit it.


Make full use of DAS but loose the capability to exploit the advantage provided by stealth. I am fairly certain which option the pilots would take. The point still stands - as you design something for your stealth fleet (5th generation stealth and subsequently sixth generation stealth) do you want to make this a choice between stealth and a WVR missile?

You don't plan on spending north of 300 Billion dollars and build up a stealth fleet and then look (as a long term sollution )
to give an "either/or" choice to the war fighters when it comes to a WVR weapon. Things like the SACM will almost have to come in for the entire stealth tactical fleet to work...whether that is 8 years from now, or 12 years from now (or something in between) remains to be seen. In the interim newer capability is being fielded through stealth, Aim-120D that goes back to Raytheon again for improved electronic protection, Aim-9X Block II and enhancements to both these systems.

Regarding the reduction in stealth capability, everything's a tradeoff. it was never intended for the F-35 to be a B-2, or even a F-22 in regards to stealth, especially from the rear.


Gen. Hostage is on record to claim that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22.

everything's a tradeoff


It doesn't have to be. Same as internal bays or more missiles do not have to be a trade-off for a said capability. Things like the CUDA, SACM etc are initiatives to change that and not make it a trade off by allowing future stealth fighters to increase both magazine depth and have an option to mix and match loads as per mission requirements. I am sorry but you can't design a 5th generation fleet, migrate to "5th generation thinking", break cultural and organizational barriers and still think about weapons using the age lets do increment improvements type of mentality.

This is where DARPA comes in!

Both Cuda and SSTRR are being supported by independent research and development money and are being pushed as concepts of interest under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Air Dominance Initiative project.

And if you're carrying external weapons, which all users especially the USMC, plan to do you're not operating in the pure stealth mode anyway.


That PLAN TO part is subject to the mission and what they are doing. None of the services are PLANNING to conduct a first day of war mission be it an air to air or air to ground carrying external weapons.

There may indeed be something being worked on in the dark, but one can't count on it.


Sure, a forum discussion can't count on it. But if you are a service working on multiple programs, are aware of where air combat is heading and where you want your capability to go you will surely factor it in. You can't launch multi-institutional developmental programs for enabling technologies and capabilities and turn around and ignore their very existence.

esides, to get it integrated on systems(especially on the F-35 and F-22 where the software changes tend to be massive) we'd be be seeing at least some hints by now. What is going on with CUDA since Lockheed's announcement, anyway?


Why do you feel that Lockheed, DARPA and the USAF/USN have a need or responsibility to share with you the progress of their various investments under the Air Dominance Initiative? an infinitive that now gets a further boost since more spending was provided to it and other such ventures through the Defense Innovation Initiate and the Aerospace Innovation Initiative.

Speaking at a Feb. 12 media roundtable during the conference, Gen. Herbert Carlisle said Air Dominance 2030 supplants talk of a single sixth-generation F-X or F/A-XX to instead focus on multi-domain capabilities. He pointed to air, space and cyber capabilities as well as new munition loadouts.
"With the F-22 and F-35, two fantastic airplanes, air dominance in that [2030] time frame may not solely be an aircraft; it's the family-of-systems discussion," Carlisle said. "Stealth is wonderful, but you need to have more than stealth. Speed and maneuverability, sensor fusion, staying inside the decision OODA loop -- there's a portion of stealth that is hugely important and is part of it, but it's certainly not the only thing."
The general said long-range standoff munitions and even new air-to-air missiles to replace the AIM-120D AMRAAM and AIM-9X Sidewinder would be included in the air superiority discussion - Insidedefense.com

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 19:08
by archeman
aaam wrote:

USAF is using F-16s in bombing roles because it's got a lot of them; makes sense.


In throwing out this last line on a longer post above I think that you may have overreached and also were dismissive perhaps of a very important and relevant fact. If you don't mind I'll fix that line for you:

"The USAF is using F-16s in bombing roles because they are great short range bombers."

The greatness of the F-16 as a bomber was evident from the first moment F-16s started showing up at bomb competitions.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 19:14
by spazsinbad
This is just frickin' sad Dan Ward. STFU. This stupid meme about dogfighting will obviously never die - especially when this sort of crap is published. WTF. Is this Dan Ward a pilot? Nope. Stay quiet. Read lots and STFU. Cogitate - read lots & ?????
What the F-35 v F-16 Dogfight Really Means: Think Pilots
08 Jul 2015 Dan Ward

BEST READ IT AT Source. The entire premise of this article is false and the test event has been discussed here heaps. There was no dogfight - this was a test for a specific stated reason, that has been gone over and over, but YMMV.

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/what ... nk-pilots/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 23:30
by cola
...and again, I don't understand why the SEP issue is permanently being equalized with combat capability issue.
The issue is SEP, which clearly won't bring F35 any extra points should it ever get into any type of combat that will require, well high SEP, in spite of what clowns like QS and the rest of the bandwagon beat.
It's mind-boggling why is this so hard to understand...

Does the F35 have a shitty SEP?
Yes it does (as reported).
Will the shitty SEP be the end of the F35?
I don't know like pretty much everybody else on this forum so this is just pure speculation and fanboysm, but why would you even go there?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 01:14
by quicksilver
Sorry, took my 'clown' show to the lake for a few days... :roll:

Let's talk about 'dogfighting' since the term is being used so liberally by so many to describe what was happening on the test flights in question.

The test flights in question utilized standard perch set-ups from both offensive and defensive starts -- same kind of stuff that is taught from ones formative BFM events in the training command. In this day and age, the jet starting in the offensive position would have already flown through almost all of the weapons employment opportunities available save the gun, so for all intents and purposes these flights were what most would call 'guns-only' maneuvering. "Guns-only' is a different game tactically, and will almost always degenerate into hard-maneuvering, energy-bleeding stuff. Were they simulating WVR missiles, a valid shot would already have occurred before the attacker came off of the perch (with no maneuver required whatsoever), or (for training purposes) as the attacking aircraft came through the low reversal.

They were gunfighting. Gunfighting is fun stuff; it is also tactically unsound unless one has no other options. But gunfighting always produces the hardest maneuvering, which is what they were there to do as part of the test plan. They werent there to explore WVR tactics w/ missiles.

Once upon a time, before all-aspect IR missiles, the 'fights-on' call (and subsequent maneuvering by the defender) would not occur until the attacker called the missile shot coming through the low reversal -- typically at the angular limits (aot) of the missiles in use at the time. The fight would then continue to one of several conclusions -- a valid missile shot behind the 3/9, a valid guns kill, a 3/9 swap, a stalement, training objective attained (attacker parked in the CZ), or a 'dirt' kill. Had the fights terminated at the first valid missile shot, there would be virtually no hard maneuvering going on and the test objectives would not have been met. They wanted to engage in hard maneuvering -- that was the whole point.

Even the neutral set-ups were flown well inside current missile envelopes. In the real world two adversaries just strolling along on parallel tracks within missile range (like a butterfly start for the neutral sets), would simply have to turn their heads to designate the target aircraft for the weapon, and then push the button (or pull the trigger depending on what kind of aircraft one flies).

So...all the weeping and gnashing of teeth about 'can't dogfight' (as in cant play in the WVR arena) ignores the fact that that's not what they were out there testing.

Relative Ps? I think someone once said there is no such thing as too much power, but Hornets at "an energy disadvantage" have been beating lotsa folks in BFM for a few decades now.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 02:20
by smsgtmac
spazsinbad wrote:This is just frickin' sad Dan Ward. STFU. This stupid meme about dogfighting will obviously never die - especially when this sort of crap is published. WTF. Is this Dan Ward a pilot? Nope. Stay quiet. Read lots and STFU. Cogitate - read lots & ?????
It's his usual 'shtick' with even more perversions of reality than normal. I could do to that piece what I did to his 'Bazooka as Magnificent Weapon' drivel with far less research, but why bother? The guy has a future in the civilian public speaker/consultant/biz writer world, if he only stopped pretending like his ideas should always apply in 'defense' or acting as if they aren't already used when appropriate.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 03:25
by KamenRiderBlade
smsgtmac wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:This is just frickin' sad Dan Ward. STFU. This stupid meme about dogfighting will obviously never die - especially when this sort of crap is published. WTF. Is this Dan Ward a pilot? Nope. Stay quiet. Read lots and STFU. Cogitate - read lots & ?????
It's his usual 'shtick' with even more perversions of reality than normal. I could do to that piece what I did to his 'Bazooka as Magnificent Weapon' drivel with far less research, but why bother? The guy has a future in the civilian public speaker/consultant/biz writer world, if he only stopped pretending like his ideas should always apply in 'defense' or acting as if they aren't already used when appropriate.


Reality will always slap people upside the head when you do real research.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 04:06
by Gums
Salute!

Some good thots lately.

Hard to believe it, but over 30 years ago the AIM-9L came to us. Slammer was in test and we were gonna be the first jets to get it because we had the 1553 muxbus to all stations and the Eagles and Tomcats didn't. Mid-course update was nice, but even without the additional radar gizmo, the basic launch worked.

So on one of my first BFM flights the IP calls the last setup and we split, then came back nose to nose. GASP! He calls a Lima shot about the same time I got a visual. Times are changing, huh? About that time the Brits had their fracas in the Falklands and I think it was the first combat use of the Lima by their Harriers. Suckers worked, and the Brits debriefed us when the dust settled.

At least one or two of our cadre was in the AIMVAL-ACEVAL program, and the all-aspect Lima was a true game changer there. None of this 3/9 line stuff but any aspect and a good chirp. The seeker slaved to your radar and you could hear it even if the angle was outside the FOV of the HUD. BFD.

I am glad the BFM test pilot tried the high AoA stuff, as it showed the futility if the other guy keeps his "e" up and so forth. It is nice to have that nose-pointing ability when all else is lost, but don't base your tactics and specific fight upon that. And then there's the Slammer, heh heh.

In all fairness, it will come down to the ROE. If it's like 'nam, then all bets are off. OTOH, the two aces then got all their kills with Sparrows or 'winders. My classmate Ritchie got all his with Sparrow, as he understood the envelope and limitations. Cunningham could have gotten a gun kill or two, but the Navy Double Ugly had no gun.

Oh well,

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 04:16
by aaam
I don't get here all that often, so I beg folks' indulgence on the tardiness of my replies. Sometimes it takes me days, if at all. This is in response to stuff I saw earlier in the day, I freely admit I may not have seen the latest posts.

Sheesh! F-35 folks are testy! I almost thought I was on Key Forums for a minute! If I may, I'm going to touch on just some (don’t have time for them all) of the slings and arrows shot at my posts.

The Hornet (to defend my accuracy): Sorry, but the F-18 and A-18 were real. This is well documented, just look up the history of the program from any number of sources. When they were combined, the F/A designation came about to indicate that the plane was supposed to be capable of fighter and attack missions equally well, as opposed to a fighter that took on a secondary attack role later on, ala the F-16 an others.

I’m not sure exactly why the F-18L was brought in here. The F-18L was one of the derivatives of the original P-530 concept, which had evolved N-300→ P-530→P600→YF-17. The Hornet was not a derivative of the YF-17, but rather N-300→P-530→VFAX→ Hornet. How well the Hornet achieved its goals is controversial and out of the scope of this discussion. Northrop developed two “L” models. The first, F-18L Cobra, was a significant change from the Hornet. It was 7,700 lbs lighter, not stressed for carrier ops, a lighter/simpler dry wing with no leading edge snag, flaperons, a revised empennage, alternative optional avionics suites, the intakes had no weapons stations but could carry sensors while the wing had three stations per side vs. two on the Hornet. The simplified landing gear was moved back to its original position, which eliminated the need for the rudders to toe in on takeoff and reduced landing roll as well. It would have been a screamer, using the same F404s as the Hornet. The thing was this was considered more “risky” by some customers.

This led to the F/A-18L. It was closer to the Hornet, but only 3,000 lbs. lighter. Non folding but wet wing, lighter simplified gear, the fuselage weapons stations were back, but the six underwing stations from the L were retained, plus AIM-7 or Skyflash in addition to AIM-9 could be carried on the wingtip stations. I think the F-18L could do this as well. Weapons capacity was 6,300 lbs. greater than the Hornet’s plus the plane was designed for 9g vs. 7.5. Northrop and MDD fell into a feud over who was supposed to be selling what overseas.


Roles of the JSF: My description of what the services were looking for was accurate. Look up CALF, MRF, SSF/ASTOVL, A-X/A/F-X et al. Also simply go back to the beginning of JSF and capabilities desired by the services and you’ll see what roles the plane was supposed to fill. Attack was the primary role. After all USAF was going to get 750 Raptors, right? That’s why internal A2A armament of two AIM-120s was acceptable. Never questioned that the F-35 is multi-role. Of course it is. I was saying that attempting to satisfy such diverse mission requirements, including carrier capability, with maximum commonality could be thought of as the genesis of many of the problems encountered. Witness F-111 and V-22 (which I strongly support). It also contributed to the glacial development of this much needed craft. A good example of that can be found in the current issue of Aviation Week. It talks about how the late ‘90s designed EOTS, which is not yet even in operational service is behind the current state of the art EO processing and imaging. By 2020, it’ll be a generation behind. This arguably is certainly directly attributable to how long it’s taken this program to move.



Talking about what the AN/APG-81 can do is not addressing the issue why AIM-9X Block III was being developed. The jamming concern was regarding the seeker in the AIM-120 itself, which is what it uses in the terminal phase. This is especially important on the AIM-120, as its warhead is smaller than that of AIM-7, so it has to be more accurate then.

Regarding DAS, it can give you the spherical awareness. In fact, one of the selling points of it has been that you can target aircraft behind the 9 o’clock—3 o’clock line, maybe even an over the shoulder shot. But to do that, to make DAS more than a, “there’s an aircraft at 5 o’clock that’s about to kill you”, system, you have to have a missile capable of taking that shot. AIM-9X Block III would have given us that. Yes, ASRAAM and Python probably can do that if there’s a system to cue them (Hmm, maybe we could call it DAS).

Regarding AIM-9X and stealth: Note that everyone plans to use AIM-9X or something on that pylon, so someone must think there are times the tradeoff is worth it. Given that, the question is how much performance you want in whatever’s going to be hanging there. BTW, UK is working on carrying ASRAAM internally, but that’s a ways out.

“None of the services are PLANNING to conduct a first day of war mission be it an air to air or air to ground carrying external weapons”. Correct. But on the SECOND day and following they are. That’s always been the plan. Full stealth first and then tradeoff (there’s that word again) for more capability. While else would there be Seven external weapons stations?

Gen. Hostage and the F-35 being stealthier: That contradicts what almost everyone, including the program office has been saying for over 20 years. The design and shape of the two seems to favor the Raptor (have you looked at the aft end of the F-22 and F-35?). This implies we would be willing to export an aircraft stealthier than the F-22. In any case, in that same interview he also said this:

“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22”...

“I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,”

“Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after”


I’ve blathered enough on this subject, I think.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 05:21
by Dragon029
aaam; what makes you say that the AIM-9X and AIM-120C/D can't perform over-the-shoulder shots?

The AIM-9X Bk II has a one-way data link which allows LOAL, and in turn, via EODAS providing targeting data, the ability to engage targets in any direction, within range / endurance constraints, while the AMRAAM has the same capability but with a 2-way data link.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 06:06
by spazsinbad
What is happening here - back in 2000 - is it?


Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 06:24
by MD
quicksilver wrote:Once upon a time, before all-aspect IR missiles, the 'fights-on' call (and subsequent maneuvering by the defender) would not occur until the attacker called the missile shot coming through the low reversal -- typically at the angular limits (aot) of the missiles in use at the time. The fight would then continue to one of several conclusions -- a valid missile shot behind the 3/9, a valid guns kill, a 3/9 swap, a stalement, training objective attained (attacker parked in the CZ), or a 'dirt' kill. Had the fights terminated at the first valid missile shot, there would be virtually no hard maneuvering going on and the test objectives would not have been met. They wanted to engage in hard maneuvering -- that was the whole point.

Even the neutral set-ups were flown well inside current missile envelopes. In the real world two adversaries just strolling along on parallel tracks within missile range (like a butterfly start for the neutral sets), would simply have to turn their heads to designate the target aircraft for the weapon, and then push the button (or pull the trigger depending on what kind of aircraft one flies).


We always used -9J/P single shot criteria for our setups to keep it as restrictive as possible. 3K didn't matter as you're already in the wrist. 6/9K, you're right, without any restrictions, the fight is over in a few seconds. Gotta get some elbow time at least. For the guns stuff, since we had no radar, we had to manually input settings in order to get a "correct" funnel in the A/A HUD, and even still we had to have some serious nose position/lead in order to bring the gun to bear, while bleeding energy like it's no one's business in the process of doing so.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 10:13
by hb_pencil
spazsinbad wrote:What is happening here - back in 2000 - is it?



I'm sure this comes as no surprise to people like MD, but notice PRM-4: the countermeasure spread on the QF-4 is concealed for security reasons. I believe it is quite likely that it was designed to simulate an adversary's countermeasure system, whether it be Russian or Chinese. That goes to my point about the U.S. working on responses to others' technological developments... we develop and test for what our opponents employ.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 10:58
by bring_it_on
Regarding DAS, it can give you the spherical awareness. In fact, one of the selling points of it has been that you can target aircraft behind the 9 o’clock—3 o’clock line, maybe even an over the shoulder shot. But to do that, to make DAS more than a, “there’s an aircraft at 5 o’clock that’s about to kill you”, system, you have to have a missile capable of taking that shot. AIM-9X Block III would have given us that. Yes, ASRAAM and Python probably can do that if there’s a system to cue them (Hmm, maybe we could call it DAS).


The Aim-9X Blk. III is a new weapon (or was to be), and it did give you the capability you mentioned, but in order to have it you ended up sacrificing arguably the most important capability of the aircraft. Is it how we want to design future weapons for this fighter? Makes absolutely no sense to me. As far as the Aim-120 seeker being vulnerable, the answer is simple add more protection or upgrade the seeker so that it performs better against electronic warfare..In fact that is what they are doing at the moment through the EPIP. Develop a new seeker if you have too, much better than to say goodbye to stealth in my opinion.

Long term solutions will be required when it comes to developing weapons (a2a and a2g) for the 5th generation fighter fleet. There are programs currently underway that are looking at what those long term solutions are going to be. The AMRAAM will not last forever, and the problem of magazine depth will not go away with the 9X Blk. III. While the blk. III would have been a nice capability to have, it was just a band-aid solution that required hard choices to be made on the ground before flying out. While it would have had some utility for the F-35, it would have really helped the Navy Rhinos that now are getting (will by 2020) a long range IRST sensor. For a long term solution to WVR and magazine depth, the DOD is most likely working on a more elegant solution. While some will want it by 2020, the fact is that the current setup is very lethal compared to the capability the adversaries field..yet what eventually comes around is going to take some time. The services will adapt in the meantime and have some very good weapons in the AIm-120D and Aim-9X Blk. II to play with both of which will take time to get integrated on the F35 as well..

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 14:18
by sferrin
aaam wrote: Yes, ASRAAM and Python probably can do that if there’s a system to cue them (Hmm, maybe we could call it DAS). .


Python 4 could do it. No reason to think Python 5 couldn't. And AIM-9X Block II has LOAL so it probably could too.



Python 5:


Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 18:42
by spazsinbad
I cannot surmise if 'devising special tactics' for the F-35 (because the stealth is better than the F-22 & Gen. Hostage said so) is a good or a bad thing (and it seems it was a good thing for the F-105 in the circumstances described). FUD what a wonderful concept FEAR UNCERTAINTY DOUBT - I wuv it. And harking back to APA is more 'I wuv it'. Way to go AXE. Clickbait Clickbait Clickbait....
F-105 was the F-35 of the Vietnam Era
08 Jul 2015 David Axe

"...the Air Force worked out special tactics to help the F-105 survive.
The flying branch will have to do the same for the F-35.... [DOH] :doh:

...Fortunately, the JSF is a stealth warplane, with design features that help it avoid detection by long-range sensors in certain circumstances.

If the F-35 is to survive in future wars, its operators must devise tactics that take advantage of this one attribute, Kopp advised. “The decisive factor for the JSF in this game will be its limited [when Gen. Hostage says otherwise] stealth performance.”

Source: http://www.realcleardefense.com/article ... 08194.html

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 18:44
by sferrin
". . .Kopp advised" :doh: :lmao:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 19:56
by bring_it_on
sferrin wrote:". . .Kopp advised" :doh: :lmao:



See, All you need is Col. Peck's book, and a 5 page report from a test pilot and you are quite an expert on air battle. Kopp is just for some extra ;) Axe based on these two resources has all the information one needs to become an expert ;)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 20:15
by geforcerfx
After doing a lot of research into WVR missiles around the globe after the article and report surfaced (but mainly the F-35's WVR missiles), I can say I might be changing my opinion on something. I have always said stealth lets you comfortably engage BVR, and then using super cruise (since it seems so far all the 5th gens should have it, even if its a limited amount) or after burner closing on the target when they are defensive to engage in WVR. But looking at the capabilities of these newer 5th gen WVR missiles it's still really dangerous, I am just gonna move to my side opinion that a merge in the 21st century for any 4th++ or 5th gen aircraft is suicide. I really see no reason to merge, even the F-35 has 4 BVR missiles atm(soon to be 6). If anything just running them out of fuel by keeping them defensive while chasing them back would almost be enough at this point to count as a win, but I trust the BVR missile design more then that. I could see a super maneuverable aircraft getting away once or twice but if your getting amraam after amraam(or meteor) shot up your a$$ I don't see much chance of survival. These new missiles just have insane capabilities, and it's not just on Paper or against a non-maneuvering drone, it's insane.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 20:16
by basher54321
Cant think why they always forget to mention the 26+ MiG-17s that F-105s gunned down.........

MiG-17 could swap ends in a turn Vs F-105 with turning radius the size of Canada.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 20:35
by basher54321
geforcerfx wrote: But looking at the capabilities of these newer 5th gen WVR missiles it's still really dangerous, I am just gonna move to my side opinion that a merge in the 21st century for any 4th++ or 5th gen aircraft is suicide. I really see no reason to merge, even the F-35 has 4 BVR missiles atm(soon to be 6).



I am of the opinion that you don't want to get close in any jet with todays missiles - but if you are forced to then you must have something that can let you approach the situation with an advantage (Hardly anything new really).

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 20:36
by spazsinbad
'geforcerfx' said: "...I am just gonna move to my side opinion that a merge in the 21st century for any 4th++ or 5th gen aircraft is suicide..." This would be the opinion of the RAAF and IF I can recall correctly - a bunch of USAF and other big wheels opining same.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 22:41
by spazsinbad
Unfortskunately over on another thread.... 'eskodas' linked to this graphic: https://i.imgur.com/qRto6cG.png from : viewtopic.php?f=55&t=27497&p=294983&hilit=webpage#p294983
The Next-Generation Attack Fighter - Affordability & Mission Needs
RAND 1997 [CORRECTED DATE]

"...Chapter Five - MANUEVERABILITY TRADE-OFFS
In this chapter we examine the maneuverability needs of the JSF. The primary reason for requiring a high-turn-rate aircraft is to ensure superior agility for close-in air-to-air combat. Based on previous analyses conducted at RAND, specifically the AIM-9X Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA), we hypothesized that with the advent of high-performance short-range air-to-air missiles (e.g., AIM-9X and ASRAAM) and a helmet mounted sight, the services could save money by backing off on aircraft turn-rate requirements without overly compromising close-in air-to-air combat capability. We examined two scenarios. The first was a strike mission in which the JSFs are equipped primarily with air-to-ground weapons but must defend themselves against several interceptors that have leaked through the escorts. The second mission examined, but not reported on here, was a defensive counter-air mission in which the JSFs are protecting an airfield from enemy strike aircraft. The conclusions were the same for both scenarios.

To "bound the design space," three levels of JSF turn-rate performance are examined (see Table 5.1). The lowest level of performance was an aircraft design optimized for the strike mission (similar to an A-6). The second level of performance was an aircraft designed for multirole missions similar to a fourth-generation fighter like the F-16. The third level was an aircraft optimized for air-to-air similar to the F-22.1 The avionics and weapons loads were the same for all three aircraft. They were equipped with a radar similar to an electronically steerable APG-68. For defensive systems, they were equipped with a radar warning receiver with the same performance as an ALR-69, plus flares and chaff. We used the Tac Brawler air combat model for this analysis. Shown in Figure 5.1 is the strike scenario we examined. Four JSFs penetrate enemy air space with air-to-ground ordnance and two AIM-9s at .9 Mach at an altitude of 500 feet. There are two threat interceptors 75 nm away that have leaked through the escorts and are descending to engage the JSFs. The interceptors are receiving ground control intercept (GCI) vectoring on a collision course with the JSFs. The JSFs are not receiving GCI vectoring. As soon as the JSFs detect the interceptors, two JSFs climb to engage the interceptors and two JSFs attempt to avoid the interceptors. The three threat aircraft used in this analysis are the MiG-23, SU-27, and the MFI (Multirole Fighter/Interceptor). The MiG-23 represents the primary threat when the F-16 was introduced. The SU-27 Flanker represents today's threat, and the MFI represents the primary threat when the JSF is introduced. Figure 5.2 shows the engagement results. The horizontal axis shows the various aircraft concepts. The vertical axis measures the U.S. air-craft probability of survival in the engagement. As a reference, the left side shows the probability of survival for the F-16A against its initial threat, the MiG-23, and the F-16C against today's threat, the SU-27 Flanker.2 Illustrated on the right are the three JSF concepts with varying degrees of maneuverability. In this analysis, we can compare the three JSF concepts against its initial threat (MFI), the F-16A against its initial threat (MiG-23), and the F-16C against today's threat.3 The dark bars represent the probability of survival of the JSF with the AIM-9M and no HMS. The lighter bars show the probability of survival with the AIM-9X and an HMS.

The ability of an aircraft to take the first shot often was critical in these engagements.4 The aircraft that fires first has the first opportunity for a kill and seizes the initiative in the engagement. The F-16A was almost always able to fire first against the more poorly maneuvering MiG-23 with AA-7 and AA-8 missiles, which led to a probability of survival (for the F-16A) of 80 percent. When today's F-16C faces a Flanker in close-in combat, and the Flanker is equipped with an HMS and highly maneuverable AA-11 missiles, the Flanker almost always gets the first shot, which leads to a F-16C probability of survival of only 60 percent. The MFI, which is assumed to be equipped with an HMS and a highly maneuverable short-range air-to-air missile, almost always fires first against a JSF (no HMS and an AIM-9M), regardless of the JSF's turn-rate performance, which leads to a probability of survival for the JSF of about 40-50 percent. When the JSF is equipped with an HMS and an AIM-9X, it once again gains the first-shot advantage and raises its probability of survival to 75-80 percent. This analysis suggests that in close-in combat the benefits of high aircraft turn rates are overshadowed by the missile's capability. The JSF may be able to achieve the same level of superiority in close-in combat that the F-16A had over the MiG-23 by having a helmet-mounted sight and an AIM-9X without requiring high levels of turn-rate performance. The AIM-9X and HMS capability are essential to survival in close-in combat when facing a threat equipped with high-off-boresight missiles and HMS. In a close-in fight against a high-off-boresight missile/ HMS-equipped opponent, the benefits of high turn rates are overshadowed by the missile's capabilities. In addition, the use of a high-off-boresight missile and HMS may allow an aircraft to defend itself in close-in combat without jettisoning air-to-ground weapons.

We also examined the benefit of high turn rates in avoiding incoming missiles. We found that it was nearly impossible to outmaneuver a modern surface-to-air or air-to-air missile. Modern missiles such as the SA-10 and M-12 are capable of 40g maneuvers. This maneuverability allows the missile to continue to track even the most maneuverable manned aircraft.

In conclusion, if the requirement for high turn rates is driven by air-to-air close-in combat, the lethality of high-off-boresight short range missiles such as the AIM-9X or ASRMM and associated targeting aids may permit some relaxation of high tum-rate performance in the interests of affordability.

1 This should not be considered an analysis of the F-22 in close-in combat. This analysis does not include F-22 avionics, only F-22-like turn-rate performance. We use F-22 as an example of a fifth-generation fighter.

2 Today's F-16C does not fare well in this analysis because we did not equip it with an HMS or a high-off-boresight missile. Any future F-16 buys probably would include an HMS and the aircraft would fare better in this analysis.

3 We are assuming that given the similarity between the F-16 and JSF missions, the Air Force would desire the same margin of superiority (in air-to-air combat) for the JSF against its initial air-to-air threat, as the F-16A had against its initial air-to-air threat.

4 Air-to-air missiles are fairly lethal in this analysis (-.5 to .6 kills per firing). If the lethality of the air-to-air missiles were lower, the value of firing first would be less...."

Source: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... /MR719.pdf (3.3Mb)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2015, 23:09
by quicksilver
...and thus the determining factor on exchange rates WVR will be determined by who has the most SA BEFORE a WVR merge. Highest SA allows the latitude to 1) refuse the WVR entry, or 2) attain greater probability that the entry will be on one's terms. After that, its mostly about the HMD and the HOBS missile.

There isn't a fighter in the world with more pre-merge SA than F-35.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 01:29
by popcorn
Not all WVR engagements will be equal. Most favorable in recent memory is that F-22 peeking up the skirts of an oblivious Iranian F-4 Phantom. LO and SA were the primary Raptor attributes that contributed to that Kodak moment.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 02:02
by smsgtmac
spazsinbad wrote:Unfortskunately over on another thread.... 'eskodas' linked to this graphic: https://i.imgur.com/qRto6cG.png from : viewtopic.php?f=55&t=27497&p=294983&hilit=webpage#p294983

Source: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... /MR719.pdf (3.3Mb)


Thanks! I had completely forgot about this report. The document link refers to 2007, but it is a 1997 pub and that makes it even MORE interesting and relevant to the current brouhaha.

About the time this was first published, contracts were being awarded to develop the X-plane technology demonstrators: it must have been largely complete before downselect to Boeing and LockMart. Therefore the point that WVR combat was changing to the degree that turning ability wasn't AS important to winning the WVR fight was already made, and bringing the point up now is NOT-- as some would assert--some kind of 'excuse' made up in the face of external criticism of the F-35 in development.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 05:56
by geogen
quicksilver wrote:...and thus the determining factor on exchange rates WVR will be determined by who has the most SA BEFORE a WVR merge. Highest SA allows the latitude to 1) refuse the WVR entry, or 2) attain greater probability that the entry will be on one's terms. After that, its mostly about the HMD and the HOBS missile.

There isn't a fighter in the world with more pre-merge SA than F-35.


You are contemplating a 2018-2020 scenario at the earliest, first off, realistically speaking.

Yet, with respect to that, in all fairness one simply does not know, or can't say which other platform mix (manned/unmanned) integrating competitive 'next-gen' avionic capabilities, sensors and networks will NOT be 'good enough' to provide an even superior alternative capacity overall.

E.g., contemplate a APG-82-type equipped F-15E+, plus dedicated IRST (latest mod), plus a dedicated latest mod ECM pod (sensor) integrated on the centerline... Such a platform would likely detect an F-35 first in a 2018-2019 Red Flag exercise before an opposing F-35 could detect said other F-35!!

That said, simply invest the saved funds for more robust package of superior a2a munitions (the actual fire power), sufficient avionics upgrades and bolt-on sensors, etc.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 06:54
by SpudmanWP
Your mythical F-15E+ could not exist and be flying by 2018.

Besides, the F-35's ESM & SA puts the F-15's to shame.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 07:20
by weasel1962
Interesting to see what is the value of targeting pods like sniper for counter-stealth A2A operations.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 08:17
by eloise
geogen wrote:E.g., contemplate a APG-82-type equipped F-15E+, plus dedicated IRST (latest mod), plus a dedicated latest mod ECM pod (sensor) integrated on the centerline... Such a platform would likely detect an F-35 first in a 2018-2019 Red Flag exercise before an opposing F-35 could detect said other F-35!!

1) IRST have very narrow FoV and slow scan rate at max range
2) IRST are heavily affected by weather and cloud ( doesn't work if weather is bad, or if enemy fly near cloud)
3) IRST lock range are very limited due to LFR
4) F-35 have reduced IR paint and exhaust nozzle, along with it's small size, it will have much lower IR signature than F-15E
5) Stealth increase jamming effectiveness significantly ( reduced power required and burn though range)
thus F-35 will always detect F-15E first
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=27364

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 08:34
by mrbsct
I'm not too sure that Topcoat IR stealth paint has much effect. Modern IRST can detect the signature of the an aircraft's skin as the air hits the plane when they moving at high speeds. RAM coatings generally have a higher IR signature, and Topcoat hides the internal emissions but doesn't cool the air around it.(I don't think that is possible)

Yes IRST has limits.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 10:02
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
quicksilver wrote:...and thus the determining factor on exchange rates WVR will be determined by who has the most SA BEFORE a WVR merge. Highest SA allows the latitude to 1) refuse the WVR entry, or 2) attain greater probability that the entry will be on one's terms. After that, its mostly about the HMD and the HOBS missile.

There isn't a fighter in the world with more pre-merge SA than F-35.


You are contemplating a 2018-2020 scenario at the earliest, first off, realistically speaking.

Yet, with respect to that, in all fairness one simply does not know, or can't say which other platform mix (manned/unmanned) integrating competitive 'next-gen' avionic capabilities, sensors and networks will NOT be 'good enough' to provide an even superior alternative capacity overall.

E.g., contemplate a APG-82-type equipped F-15E+, plus dedicated IRST (latest mod), plus a dedicated latest mod ECM pod (sensor) integrated on the centerline... Such a platform would likely detect an F-35 first in a 2018-2019 Red Flag exercise before an opposing F-35 could detect said other F-35!!

That said, simply invest the saved funds for more robust package of superior a2a munitions (the actual fire power), sufficient avionics upgrades and bolt-on sensors, etc.


No geogen. For the same reasons the answer was no the last 100 times you posted the same half baked ideas that no one in the military is interested in

At what point is this considered trolling? Suggesting the same thing over and over again using the exact same vocabulary over and over again? Only to have people who know better say "No"

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 11:13
by quicksilver
geogen wrote:
quicksilver wrote:...and thus the determining factor on exchange rates WVR will be determined by who has the most SA BEFORE a WVR merge. Highest SA allows the latitude to 1) refuse the WVR entry, or 2) attain greater probability that the entry will be on one's terms. After that, its mostly about the HMD and the HOBS missile.

There isn't a fighter in the world with more pre-merge SA than F-35.


You are contemplating a 2018-2020 scenario at the earliest, first off, realistically speaking.

Yet, with respect to that, in all fairness one simply does not know, or can't say which other platform mix (manned/unmanned) integrating competitive 'next-gen' avionic capabilities, sensors and networks will NOT be 'good enough' to provide an even superior alternative capacity overall.

E.g., contemplate a APG-82-type equipped F-15E+, plus dedicated IRST (latest mod), plus a dedicated latest mod ECM pod (sensor) integrated on the centerline... Such a platform would likely detect an F-35 first in a 2018-2019 Red Flag exercise before an opposing F-35 could detect said other F-35!!

That said, simply invest the saved funds for more robust package of superior a2a munitions (the actual fire power), sufficient avionics upgrades and bolt-on sensors, etc.


omg.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 19:26
by geforcerfx
geogen wrote:
quicksilver wrote:...and thus the determining factor on exchange rates WVR will be determined by who has the most SA BEFORE a WVR merge. Highest SA allows the latitude to 1) refuse the WVR entry, or 2) attain greater probability that the entry will be on one's terms. After that, its mostly about the HMD and the HOBS missile.

There isn't a fighter in the world with more pre-merge SA than F-35.


You are contemplating a 2018-2020 scenario at the earliest, first off, realistically speaking.

Yet, with respect to that, in all fairness one simply does not know, or can't say which other platform mix (manned/unmanned) integrating competitive 'next-gen' avionic capabilities, sensors and networks will NOT be 'good enough' to provide an even superior alternative capacity overall.

E.g., contemplate a APG-82-type equipped F-15E+, plus dedicated IRST (latest mod), plus a dedicated latest mod ECM pod (sensor) integrated on the centerline... Such a platform would likely detect an F-35 first in a 2018-2019 Red Flag exercise before an opposing F-35 could detect said other F-35!!

That said, simply invest the saved funds for more robust package of superior a2a munitions (the actual fire power), sufficient avionics upgrades and bolt-on sensors, etc.


Your f-15e would get picked up by the apg-81 long before its IRST pod would become useful, apg-82 has less tr modules and less processing behind it then the apg-81. If by some miracle both sides are limited to IRST the EOTS is no slouch and it's looking for a twin engine large fighter with no ir shielding.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 21:44
by cantaz
Sometimes I wonder if geogen is a bot, he has the same argument for pretty much everything, just rephrased differently.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 22:08
by zenith
A good response. http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07 ... losophies/

Hi. I have experience engineering controls for these types of systems and I would like to point out that the media has been doing an _incredibly_ poor job interpreting the leaked report.

The report in question described the results of a very specific test of the F-35 control laws. The result of test indicated that in a particular part of the flight envelope the plane responded sluggishly to pitch inputs from the pilot. This would make it harder for the pilot to exploit the F-35 airframe's great high-AOA capability because it means that the airplane will take longer than it needs transitioning to the requested AOA and therefore bleed more energy.

The report also noted that the aircraft itself has sufficient control surfaces to allow for much higher pitch & yaw rates. The test-pilot recommended relaxing the control laws to allow for faster pitch rates in the part of the flight envelope where the test occurred which would give a pilot more ability to exploit the aircraft's AOA capabilities.

The test did _NOT_ indicate that the F-16 was a better dogfighter. The F-16 was simply used as a visual reference for the F-35 test pilot to maneuver against.


Anyone who wants to understand what REALLY happened should read the actual report:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-f ... 9a4e66f3eb


David Axe has a history of blatantly misrepresenting findings and totally misunderstanding how modern wars are prosecuted. Its a shame other journalists are repeating his silliness without much critical analysis.

edit: Every fighter is developed and tested this way: Start with conservative control laws then relax them as needed according to tests. Same thing happened with the F-16, F-15, and F-14 during development. We just didn't have the internet then so uninformed dilettantes couldn't broadcast their opinion.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2015, 22:53
by Gums
Salute!

Well. Zenith, another non-pilot or clueless dweeb is talking about range and such.

I shall guarantee you that the Sluf and early Vipers could carry a decent load and a centerline tank ( maybe, as we did in the infamous bomb comp). Sluf could carry 12 x 500 lb and two ECM pods plus two Aim-9. Figure a 300 n.m. radius with no help. So in last days of LB 2 we tried 12 x 500 and pods and got a top off in the way in. The Thuds and Double Uglies could not believe we had the range. And we could hit within 10 or 20 meters of what we aimed at from 8,000 feet.

The early Vipers routinely ran the Eagles outta gas in ACM ( they had that huge centerline tank) and with two bags for A2G at Red Flag we could hold 540 knots and have maybe 90 minutes before we thot about RTB.

Funny, but Sluf and Viper had about the same fuel flow when RTB. The Viper was at 0.9 M or so and we were about 0.8 M

Oh well, funny to read B.S. from clueless folks.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2015, 04:28
by spazsinbad
'Gums' here is your 'author dweeb'.
The deadly F-35 strike fighter The jet is incapable of defending itself or American troops on the ground
09 Jul 2015 Jed Babbin

"...Jed Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a senior fellow of the London Center for Policy Research and the author of five books including “In the Words of Our Enemies.”

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... #pagebreak

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2015, 20:58
by luke_sandoz
He seems to be talking to people who have watched Top Gun more then 5 times.

"He believes “the anti-F-35 crowd are so focused on how we fought in the last century with old equipment that they can’t conceive of, or understand the information edge advantage aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 provide.”

He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16 ... whos-best/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2015, 02:25
by count_to_10
mrbsct wrote:I'm not too sure that Topcoat IR stealth paint has much effect. Modern IRST can detect the signature of the an aircraft's skin as the air hits the plane when they moving at high speeds. RAM coatings generally have a higher IR signature, and Topcoat hides the internal emissions but doesn't cool the air around it.(I don't think that is possible)

Yes IRST has limits.

I don't think that IRST tracks emissions from air molecules -- not only is the air very diffuse, but the same wavelengths produced would also be readily absorbed by the same air. Most likely, they track the thermal and spectral radiation of the aircraft skin when it is heated by that hot air, so thermal coatings matter. They also may see IR emissions of the CO2 and H2O in the exhaust, as those are spectral IR emitters and less concentrated in the atmosphere (mostly). But that's just a guess based on physics, not the actual systems.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2015, 02:25
by KamenRiderBlade
luke_sandoz wrote:He seems to be talking to people who have watched Top Gun more then 5 times.

"He believes “the anti-F-35 crowd are so focused on how we fought in the last century with old equipment that they can’t conceive of, or understand the information edge advantage aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 provide.”

He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’ optimized for different threat regimes, and can perform the roles of “F,” “B,” “A,” “RC,” “E,”EA,” and AWACS aircraft of the past.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16 ... whos-best/


Then should 5th gen aircraft have a multi letter designation?

Should the F-35 become the F/A-35?

Or FAER-35?

Since the F-35 can do far more than most people expect, it might need a new designation that is worthy of it's mission capabilities and paradigm shift

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2015, 02:46
by SpudmanWP
F/E/A/R-35 :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2015, 03:15
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: 'SWP' I like it. The Brits have a fondest for acronyms that can change a lot over time for the same aircraft/concept/whatever. I recall them using FEAR at one time but not sure for what. I'll check. Anyways REMEMBER "FEAR THE REAPER" https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 54a1c6.jpg

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2015, 21:30
by gabriele
FEAR (or better FE@R) is most commonly used by the brits to mean Force Elements At Readiness, and denotes how many deployable combat aircraft a fleet is expected to routinely express. As of now, the plan, as it appears from MOD documents, is for a 75 - 25 % split between Typhoon and F-35 in the FEAR that the RAF will be able to express in 2020.
The number of aircraft is not given, but is almost certainly something like 36 Typhoon - 12 F-35B or 30 - 10. An initial FEAR of 10 F-35 appeared as an early target in several NAO reports in the last few years.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2015, 22:36
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'gabriele' I could not find anything via 'google' but 'FE@R' is likely to have found something. Brits eh. Meanwhile if there are not three links to this article - there are now four:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2015, 22:52
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Talkin' about FEAR -- does the F-35 need to be concerned about these chaps? :devil:

https://www.facebook.com/Kurdsat/videos ... 0/?fref=nf

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2015, 06:52
by Corsair1963
zenith wrote:A good response. http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07 ... losophies/

Hi. I have experience engineering controls for these types of systems and I would like to point out that the media has been doing an _incredibly_ poor job interpreting the leaked report.

The report in question described the results of a very specific test of the F-35 control laws. The result of test indicated that in a particular part of the flight envelope the plane responded sluggishly to pitch inputs from the pilot. This would make it harder for the pilot to exploit the F-35 airframe's great high-AOA capability because it means that the airplane will take longer than it needs transitioning to the requested AOA and therefore bleed more energy.

The report also noted that the aircraft itself has sufficient control surfaces to allow for much higher pitch & yaw rates. The test-pilot recommended relaxing the control laws to allow for faster pitch rates in the part of the flight envelope where the test occurred which would give a pilot more ability to exploit the aircraft's AOA capabilities.

The test did _NOT_ indicate that the F-16 was a better dogfighter. The F-16 was simply used as a visual reference for the F-35 test pilot to maneuver against.


Anyone who wants to understand what REALLY happened should read the actual report:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-f ... 9a4e66f3eb


David Axe has a history of blatantly misrepresenting findings and totally misunderstanding how modern wars are prosecuted. Its a shame other journalists are repeating his silliness without much critical analysis.

edit: Every fighter is developed and tested this way: Start with conservative control laws then relax them as needed according to tests. Same thing happened with the F-16, F-15, and F-14 during development. We just didn't have the internet then so uninformed dilettantes couldn't broadcast their opinion.


David Axe often quotes Carlos Kopp. Which, speaks volumes.... :doh:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 00:31
by quicksilver
"David Axe has a history of blatantly misrepresenting findings and totally misunderstanding how modern wars are prosecuted."

Intentional evil? Nah. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

"It's a shame other journalists are repeating his silliness without much critical analysis."

Well, duh. "Birds of a feather...".

Seriously. These guys have no more clue than most of the people who are reading their stuff.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 01:05
by eskodas
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor, Holds true the vast majority of the time.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 02:37
by quicksilver
Scrolling through lotsa stuff -- amazing the excursions from the reality.

One more time...

There isn't a jet in the world that can point its nose as fast as a pilot can turn his or her head. When one combines that targeting reality with 'James Bond' missiles (go see 'You Only Live Twice' again), all the bloviating about dogfighting is irrelevant. Everyone with a helmet and a HOBS -- once in the WVR arena -- is about equal.

Thus -- I say it again -- those with the most sa BEFORE the merge will have the highest probability of success and survivability. Why? Because they can refuse the merge entry, or enter on their own terms.

Which aircraft exactly will be having the most SA before any kind of merge? That's right -- F-35. Why? Its sensor package is in a league of its own -- bar none. Today. That's right -- today, with Block 2B/3i.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 17:18
by zero-one
quicksilver wrote:Scrolling through lotsa stuff -- amazing the excursions from the reality.

One more time...

There isn't a jet in the world that can point its nose as fast as a pilot can turn his or her head. When one combines that targeting reality with 'James Bond' missiles (go see 'You Only Live Twice' again), all the bloviating about dogfighting is irrelevant. Everyone with a helmet and a HOBS -- once in the WVR arena -- is about equal.

Thus -- I say it again -- those with the most sa BEFORE the merge will have the highest probability of success and survivability. Why? Because they can refuse the merge entry, or enter on their own terms.

Which aircraft exactly will be having the most SA before any kind of merge? That's right -- F-35. Why? Its sensor package is in a league of its own -- bar none. Today. That's right -- today, with Block 2B/3i.



Careful with that, I do agree with most of your points, however saying that WVR combat will be a simple look and shoot contest
is denying the fundamentals of air-air combat in general.

Its about who can give the best Pk to the missile itself. As gums had pointed out, no missile will do a 180 for you and hit the guy
at your back. likewise if you don't give the missile a goo envelope to work with, then you're going to waste a very limited resource.

There seems to be a trend in missile Pk throughout the years.
Pre Viettnam the Sparrow's Pk was suposed to be around 85%, in actual combat it was 11%, it improved when pilots learned how to give it
a better envelope to work with.

Fast forward 20 years, in ACEVAL\AIMVAL, the all asspect IR missile was supposed to be a "game changer" as it would make WVR combat
incredibly deadly, resulting in mutaual kills against fighters armed with Aim-7s, hence the Aim-120 was developed.

fast forward 5 years and these game changing all aspect IR missiles were being spoofed by flares in Iraq.

Fast forward again 10 years
The Aim-120 launch and leave BVR missile was a giant leap in BVR technology allowing fighters the ability to neutralize targets at BVR ranges.
Today the Aim-120's combat Pk stands at around 50% and none of those targets had the most advanced Russian ECMs and biggest maneuvering envelopes.

I'm not trying to push that dogfights will still dictate the outcome of future air combat, but I'm simply saying that, dealing in
absolute terms denies these historical facts.

The F-35 will undoubtedly have enourmous advantages due to great SA, more SA than any other aircraft, but it will never match the F-22 in A-A combat
The F-22 has less stellar SA but makes up for this with unpralleled performance.

And according to NATO simulations the F-35 should have a kill\loss ratio of 8:1 against the most advanced 4.5 gen threats while the F-22 enjoys
a 30:1 advantage. Not surprising since the F-22 will give it's weapons the best possible Pk in any type of fight.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 17:36
by basher54321
http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

It’s simply fascinating to watch every hipster who’s ever played Ace Combat sit back and pontificate about the downfalls of an aircraft that hasn’t even reached IOC. It’s like a renaissance of air combat.

As the first fighter in the digital age, the F-35 has allowed people to watch and read about the results of flight tests in near real time, drawing their own conclusions as to the success or failure of the program. Security clearance? Who needs it? Wikipedia has everything that anyone who’s ever played Battlefield 4 on Playstation needs to know in order to realize that the F-35 is a sitting duck if you happen to get it after a respawn.

I’m just a lowly fourth-gen pilot, so my opinions might not be as valid as someone who’s read a leaked FOUO report on the internet, but before the million-man Strawman Army reaches full strength, it may be time to inject some sanity into this discussion:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 17:53
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'basher54321' I was just reading this post. What a marvel. I reckon PR is impossible in the internet age. Too many numnuts with an ignorant agenda who have no clue. My favourite saying from my RAN FAA career (long ago now) is "What you don't know you don't know - you don't know" is mimicked in this phrase in the article:
"...They just don’t know what they don’t know...."

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 18:10
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:There seems to be a trend in missile Pk throughout the years.
Pre Viettnam the Sparrow's Pk was suposed to be around 85%, in actual combat it was 11%, it improved when pilots learned how to give it a better envelope to work with.


If you get the pre Nam PK test figures they were usually referring to level flying bombers. The PK figure also gets kinda pointless when you are aware of the many hidden factors behind it.


zero-one wrote:Fast forward 20 years, in ACEVAL\AIMVAL, the all asspect IR missile was supposed to be a "game changer" as it would make WVR combat
incredibly deadly, resulting in mutaual kills against fighters armed with Aim-7s, hence the Aim-120 was developed.


The combat use of the Python 3 and AIM-9L was very impressive in 1982 - they were certainly a big step up from previous missiles. But also you cant just think - "oh my wonder flare will decoy the missile" and then you get one in the face. Even the VPAF had to use tactics to negate the all aspect AIM-7 - may have had a low PK but it still killed them WVR on occasion.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 18:13
by basher54321
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'basher54321' I was just reading this post. What a marvel. I reckon PR is impossible in the internet age. Too many numnuts with an ignorant agenda who have no clue. My favourite saying from my RAN FAA career (long ago now) is "What you don't know you don't know - you don't know" is mimicked in this phrase in the article:
"...They just don’t know what they don’t know...."



Love that guys stuff - but as you know a lot of Internet experts still wont understand his explanations - and some just don't want to.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 18:48
by zero-one
basher54321 wrote:
zero-one wrote:There seems to be a trend in missile Pk throughout the years.
Pre Viettnam the Sparrow's Pk was suposed to be around 85%, in actual combat it was 11%, it improved when pilots learned how to give it a better envelope to work with.


If you get the pre Nam PK test figures they were usually referring to level flying bombers. The PK figure also gets kinda pointless when you are aware of the many hidden factors behind it.


zero-one wrote:Fast forward 20 years, in ACEVAL\AIMVAL, the all asspect IR missile was supposed to be a "game changer" as it would make WVR combat
incredibly deadly, resulting in mutaual kills against fighters armed with Aim-7s, hence the Aim-120 was developed.


The combat use of the Python 3 and AIM-9L was very impressive in 1982 - they were certainly a big step up from previous missiles. But also you cant just think - "oh my wonder flare will decoy the missile" and then you get one in the face. Even the VPAF had to use tactics to negate the all aspect AIM-7 - may have had a low PK but it still killed them WVR on occasion.


well I get that, thats why I think dealing in absolute terms is pointless. wonder flares and super duper ECMs will not make you
invulnerable but at the same time wonder missiles and super duper sensors will not gurantee a kill.

too many things come in to play in air combat, I would not be surprised if an air war with a peer adversary gives us plentey of surprises.

fact is, no one has sufficient data to draw conclusions on how the next air war will pan out.

Thats why even if it's almost next to impossible to come close to a Raptor in excercises, ROEs are still drawn to force Raptors into a merge.

I think the logic behind this is clear, the USAF doesn't want to be left in the dark again, if air combat doesn't pan out to be the
"point and shoot at radar blimps" game that everyone expects they will still have competent pilots to be able to deal with any situation.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2015, 18:59
by blindpilot
zero-one wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Scrolling through lotsa stuff -- amazing the excursions from the reality.

One more time...

... -- I say it again -- those with the most sa BEFORE the merge will have the highest probability of success and survivability. Why? Because they can refuse the merge entry, or enter on their own terms.

Which aircraft exactly will be having the most SA before any kind of merge? ...



Careful with that, I do agree with most of your points, however saying that WVR combat will be a simple look and shoot contest is denying the fundamentals of air-air combat in general...


There is a texture here being missed in our contemplation. I'll keep bringing it up. Remember the great Israeli dog fighting pilots in the early stages of the Yom Kippur War? The stupid SAMs got in the way of the theory. (keep in mind that the SAMs in 1973 could only manage one missile per battery at a time. That's not true today.) Even though the kill ratio ended up pretty good, the start was ugly for at least 12 aircraft.

In today's world of near peer combat. NO 4TH GEN AIRCRAFT WILL GET PAST THE IADS! They will not be there for the merge, any more than the Israeli F-4s got to demonstrate their superior skill and strategy at the start of Yom Kippur. It is not JUST SA. It is also stealth as the ticket to even let you play the game. There is no merge if you are at the bottom of the Persian Gulf, 50 miles offshore, before the F-35s even take off. 5th gen is more than the sum of the pieces.

BP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2015, 00:07
by charlielima223
zero-one wrote: The F-35 will undoubtedly have enourmous advantages due to great SA, more SA than any other aircraft, but it will never match the F-22 in A-A combat
The F-22 has less stellar SA but makes up for this with unpralleled performance.

And according to NATO simulations the F-35 should have a kill\loss ratio of 8:1 against the most advanced 4.5 gen threats while the F-22 enjoys a 30:1 advantage. Not surprising since the F-22 will give it's weapons the best possible Pk in any type of fight.


Why would you consider the F-22 to have "less stellar SA"? In Red Flag exercises F-22's stealth and overall SA allow 4 Raptors to hold a piece of sky that is disproportionate to their operational element. Also not just phenomenal kinematics (for the F-22), wouldn't overall better SA allow the pilot to increase Pk? Knowing where the enemy is and what they're doing should allow the F-35 or F-22 pilot to engage at a time and place more favorable to their choosing.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2015, 00:37
by popcorn
Great article basher54321. If only it would get anywhere close to the attention it merits but life ain't fair.sigh..
i recall years ago Dozer mentioning that in the early days serious consideration was given to swapping out the Raptor's gun for more fuel. The gun eventually won out but the mere fact that they were even willing to consider it was revealing.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2015, 01:17
by Dragon029
charlielima223 wrote:
Why would you consider the F-22 to have "less stellar SA"? In Red Flag exercises F-22's stealth and overall SA allow 4 Raptors to hold a piece of sky that is disproportionate to their operational element. Also not just phenomenal kinematics (for the F-22), wouldn't overall better SA allow the pilot to increase Pk? Knowing where the enemy is and what they're doing should allow the F-35 or F-22 pilot to engage at a time and place more favorable to their choosing.


He's just saying that it has "less stellar SA" in comparison to the F-35, which seems accurate to me at this point in time (lack of HMDS or JHMCS, no IRST, no MADL). Random little question actually for anyone in the know; is the F-22 still getting satcom / does it have it yet?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2015, 01:55
by fondueset
Thought this might help :)ImageF22 Detail IV by Jason Lome, on Flickr
ImageF22 Stylized by Jason Lome, on Flickr

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2015, 10:25
by uclass
fondueset wrote:Thought this might help :)ImageF22 Detail IV by Jason Lome, on Flickr

Robert Gates killed the F-22 due to the same BS and the fact he was an army guy. He deliberately stopped it being deployed to combat several times between 2007 and 2009 just so he could make the case it was useless.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2015, 10:49
by zero-one
charlielima223 wrote:Why would you consider the F-22 to have "less stellar SA"? In Red Flag exercises F-22's stealth and overall SA allow 4 Raptors to hold a piece of sky that is disproportionate to their operational element. Also not just phenomenal kinematics (for the F-22), wouldn't overall better SA allow the pilot to increase Pk? Knowing where the enemy is and what they're doing should allow the F-35 or F-22 pilot to engage at a time and place more favorable to their choosing.



What I meant was that the F-22 would have less than stellar SA compared to the F-35.
The F-22 has the largest most powerful AESA on a fighter,
passive electronic emission sensors that can probably pick up anything giving out a signal within a few hundred miles
and a missile warning receiver that sees in the ultraviolet spectrum.

But despite all this the Raptor can only see mostly in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Compared to the F-35 that has 2 types of IR\Optical sensors and 2 types of electromagnetic sensors, one active and one passive.
the F-35 will certainly have better SA than the Raptor.

But I don't think anyone here would preffer and F-35 over an F-22 in A-A. Even F-35 test pilot Jon Beesley said that
in A-A He'd pick a Raptor, for everything else the F-35.

I'm not saying that the F-35 can't cut it in A-A, all Im saying is looking at both aircraft here is what I see.

F-22
-Stealth
-less SA
-better performance

F-35
-Stealth
-better SA
-less performance

and according to the USAF the F-22 is superior in A-A.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2015, 12:07
by charlielima223
zero-one wrote:
What I meant was that the F-22 would have less than stellar SA compared to the F-35.

Compared to the F-35 that has 2 types of IR\Optical sensors and 2 types of electromagnetic sensors, one active and one passive.
the F-35 will certainly have better SA than the Raptor.

I'm not saying that the F-35 can't cut it in A-A, all Im saying is looking at both aircraft here is what I see.

F-22
-Stealth
-less SA
-better performance

F-35
-Stealth
-better SA
-less performance

and according to the USAF the F-22 is superior in A-A.


Fair enough. I most likely took your comment out of context, I should have known better :doh: .

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 00:54
by bring_it_on
basher54321 wrote:http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

It’s simply fascinating to watch every hipster who’s ever played Ace Combat sit back and pontificate about the downfalls of an aircraft that hasn’t even reached IOC. It’s like a renaissance of air combat.

As the first fighter in the digital age, the F-35 has allowed people to watch and read about the results of flight tests in near real time, drawing their own conclusions as to the success or failure of the program. Security clearance? Who needs it? Wikipedia has everything that anyone who’s ever played Battlefield 4 on Playstation needs to know in order to realize that the F-35 is a sitting duck if you happen to get it after a respawn.

I’m just a lowly fourth-gen pilot, so my opinions might not be as valid as someone who’s read a leaked FOUO report on the internet, but before the million-man Strawman Army reaches full strength, it may be time to inject some sanity into this discussion:
:applause: :applause:


Awesome article..Have been really busy over the past few days so it slipped out of my reading list...

The best part ;)

But at the end of the day, this aircraft has done one thing no other aircraft has ever been able to do – turn an entire generation of aviation bloggers, journalists, and commenters into overnight military aviation experts.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 04:55
by smsgtmac
I just dragged through this whole thread looking for a comment, One that after I relived the timeline, I remembered the comment I [wanted] was in a related thread. I have a couple of questions that have arisen due to this re-look.

1. I didn't see one comment by "vilters" or "cola" that didn't come off as pure troll droppings (There were others, but they weren't standouts in comparison). Yet I see apparently NO warnings were given. It's a little late for me to flag them this time around but how did they get away with it? Spreading their trolling out so thin that it never set off the warning lights?

2. I'm 'kinda "hep" to the whole high-AoA utility discussion, and am more than familiar with the origins of the 'supermaneuverability' concept. I know (as most) that a lot of BFM training may degrade into a post-stall fight. So I'm researching a question that I think I know the answer to. But as I am one little researcher in a great big font of knowledge so I may be wrong so I'm reaching out on this obviously related topic with this query:
Has there ever been an actual air to air combat engagement that devolved into a supermaneuverability fight for at least one of the combatants? I don't think so.
BTW: The 'supermaneuverability' concept itself dates only from around 1980.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 06:44
by spazsinbad
First F-35 fighter squadron activated at Hill
20 Jul 2015 Mitch Shaw | Hilltop Times Correspondent

"...[Col. David B. Lyons & Lt. Col. George Watkins, new commander of the squadron] The colonels answered to those who have criticized the F-35 program for its expense and apparent lack of performance. The most recent cost estimate for operating and supporting the F-35 fleet exceeds $1 trillion and a leaked internal brief written by a test pilot who was flying the F-35 during a January test run revealed the jet was losing dogfights to the F-16. [oh for fsake already]

"Things aren't perfect, but things are still in development and you can see the potential," Lyons said, adding that the F-35 flies similarly to the F-16, but by fusing many different sensors together, makes the pilot's job easier in the cockpit."

Source: http://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123453873

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 14:23
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Hey Mac, great stuff on the high AoA. That falling leaf legacy Hornet video was eye opening.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 17:19
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: 'FALLING Leaves' is a song ain't it? :doh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhyzW-5fiXk

In 'Part 3' of the series by 'SMSgt Mac' there is this note: "...A flight manual limit was imposed, identical to that on the heritage Hornet, restricting full stick rolls to 360 deg...." Same limit was in NATOPS for the A-4 (because of the twinkle roll rate at full aileron being 720 degrees per second whilst going beyond that in level flight would cause 'inertial coupling' effects. And because of the fast roll rate that meant the pilot could go to about half aileron deflection at best roll rate speed of 250 'cannots' (IAS) - at the quickest aileron movement possible - and then back again to centred aileron to have gone through the 360 degree roll. To be in the rear seat of the TA-4 it was always head banging time (against the canopy).

In same 'Part 3' there is this quote:
"...“Flip-Flops” – A Spin on the Wild Side
Finally, A mode that manifested in a “significant minority of spins” was “a change in polarity” during recovery. An upright spin would suddenly flip to ‘inverted’, and inverted spins would suddenly flip upright. Viewed directly from above or below, the spin direction would not change, but from the pilot’s perspective, “an upright spin to the right was now an inverted spin to the left.” Or vice versa (Heller Et Al). The ‘fix’ was made in the Flight Control System software to first recognize the ‘flip’ and then provide the pilot with correct display information to assist in the recovery...."

When first able to read a HORNET NATOPS PDF from online I thought the 'spin' recovery was magic with the spin arrow aid display (I forget what it is called). Spins can be disorientating depending on many other factors and to have them FLIP is mind boggling! :mrgreen: I like the way the CANUK? Hornet pilot trusts the machine to get to 180 cannots before recovering. :mrgreen:


Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 19:03
by Gums
Salute!

@ SgtMac and others here

Yep, the Hornet can depart.

Nope about FBW, and the original, 'tween, and current Hornets are still not complete FBW like the Viper since day one, like the Raptor, or Stubbie or maybe Concrorde, but definitely the Shuttle.

There are lottsa differences between control laws of the computer "assist/protection" and the overall system. Go ask the Airbus folks after several stall crashes with no mechanical or hydraulic commands available from the stick/yoke/whatever.

A pure FBW like the Viper and the Raptor has zero connects to the control surfaces other than electrical signals to the actuators and a supply of hydraulic pressure. Hell, some stuff flying today does not even have a central hydraulic pump, but uses a small sucker at the control surface actuators. Show me a Hornet document that has zero mechanical connections to anything regarding the control surfaces. Show me!!!

The A-7D/E had same stick that the original Viper used for the flyoff. They added more transducers, but the pressure was the key, not the movement. So in "control aug" with the Sluf, just a touch of pressure, not stick deflection, commanded a control surface movement. On a test hope we would lock the stick 'tween our knees and press the stick grip. Sucker would roll or go up/down. While going to end of rwy we could tell if the guy ahead had "control aug" engaged because his ailerons and elevator was flipping up and down ( small movements). So years later I saw it in the Viper, as the gryo and accelerometer inputs were trying to maintain one gee and zero roll rate.

You can have a cosmic autopilot connect to your mechanical/hydraulic/cable/push rod, whatever system, but that ain't FBW!!! Disconnect all the mechanical stuff and then use only electrons from stick sensors via a computer to the control surfaces. THAT, is FBW. Hell, throw away the computer and do it very direct.

Sorry for the rant, but a lot of misconceptions out there re: FBW.

Sorry, Sgt Mac, but I have more going here than you do.

Gums rants...

EDIT: Removed useless words...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 19:43
by geforcerfx
More "falling leafs"


Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 21:14
by charlielima223
bring_it_on wrote:
basher54321 wrote:http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

It’s simply fascinating to watch every hipster who’s ever played Ace Combat sit back and pontificate about the downfalls of an aircraft that hasn’t even reached IOC. It’s like a renaissance of air combat.

As the first fighter in the digital age, the F-35 has allowed people to watch and read about the results of flight tests in near real time, drawing their own conclusions as to the success or failure of the program. Security clearance? Who needs it? Wikipedia has everything that anyone who’s ever played Battlefield 4 on Playstation needs to know in order to realize that the F-35 is a sitting duck if you happen to get it after a respawn.

I’m just a lowly fourth-gen pilot, so my opinions might not be as valid as someone who’s read a leaked FOUO report on the internet, but before the million-man Strawman Army reaches full strength, it may be time to inject some sanity into this discussion:


I read that article and it was a good article. The only thing that annoyed me was the Ace Combat comment. I'll admit it I play that game. I've been playing that game since I was in high school. I love that game. I am smart enough and have enough reasoning to know that its just that a game, not even a simulator. Just felt like I was forcibly grouped into a percentage I feel I do not belong to, just saying.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 02:25
by smsgtmac
Gums wrote:Salute!....

.....Sorry for the rant, but a lot of misconceptions out there re: FBW.

Sorry, Sgt Mac, but I have more going here than you do.

Gums rants...


RE: 'Pure' FBW. Not a problem Gums. I don't see any material disconnect if we use your definition :)

.....and I haven't designed or evaluated somebody else's FCS System, FMET or Flight "test program" for nigh on 5-6 years now, :D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 03:52
by Gums
Salute!

Yeah Sgt Mac, was not sure we all understand what pure FBW means,

For the newbies, our fighters and some heavies have had electronic and electro-mechanical and pneunatic connections to our flight control systems since the fifties. To wit:

- pitch and yaw dampers from the F-100 on.

- pitch rate and total AoA limiters like what I flew with in the Voodoo

- The stuf like if flew in the Sluf called control aug

Except for an X plane or two, the Viper was pure electronic FBW from day one. And then the Shuttle.

We went round and round about this on Pprune tech log with af 447.

You can fool with the sfwe on the FBW jets, but only to the extent the basic aero allows.

Gums sends....


.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 10:57
by zero-one
Lot of good stuff here, a few questions though, if I'm understanding this correctly, the Hornet is not a full FBW bird?
so it is partly FBW.
is this true even for the latest block of Legacy hornets?

I've read on the SHornet NATOPS that it was an unstable design,
was this true for the Legacy Hornet as well? I'd be surprised if Northrop tried to compete against GD's YF-16 with a stable airframe.

Also the Eagle, did the C models, built in 1983 incorporate FBW? I know the A model was stable, but was this true for the C as well?

I saw a Viper's stick once, it barely moved at all, it was sensitive to pressure,
I read here somwhere that they added some movement to the stick to keep pilots from over correcting. Is this true for the Raptor and Stubby also?
do they have barely moving pressure sensitive sticks as well?

And lastly for Mr.Gums, since you flew both FBW and non FBW birds, how did the loss of "feeling" affect your flying.
In a non FBW fighter, you knew the aircraft had a hard time turning because the stick was heavy, obviously in a FBW aircraft you wouldn't feel this.

did it affect your flying? Giora Epstein said it was simply less enjoyable on a FBW Viper because the "feel" was gone.
What about you sir? Did you find the loss of "feeling" somewhat of a disconnect to the plane?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 13:48
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:
I've read on the SHornet NATOPS that it was an unstable design,
was this true for the Legacy Hornet as well? I'd be surprised if Northrop tried to compete against GD's YF-16 with a stable airframe.

Also the Eagle, did the C models, built in 1983 incorporate FBW? I know the A model was stable, but was this true for the C as well?

The Super Hornet is "neutral to marginally unstable" 16-31% MAC IIRC.

The Hornet is relaxed stability. CG range of 16-27% MAC IIRC.

I can't answer fully for the F-15C, but from the F-15E "addition of the CFT moves CG aft and increases pitch response" so that tells me it is less stable than the F-15C. The E model ranges from 22-29% IIRC. At CGs of aft of I think 26 or 27% it talks about it being touchy in pitch and for the pilot to limit AoA.

For comparison the F-14 has a (confusing) CG range of 6-16%, 17% is listed as the Aft Limit, and 22% present pitch occilations at speeds where the wings are forward. This is why the "Bomb" setting of the seep is 55 degrees. Having two one ton bombs that far aft presents CG issues.

The F-16 has a CG range or 30-40% MAC. The pilot doesn't have to care or think about it, they just fly.

So in a nutshell, The F-14 is "Stable", the F-15C and Legacy Hornet are "neutral stable", the Strike Eagle is "neutral", the Super Hornet is "neutral stable to neutral unstable", and the Viper is "Unstable". The FCS augments stability on the non Vipers here, but it has limits to what it can do. It doesn't tolerate aft CG loads well.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 15:57
by Gums
Salute!

I can not find a good document that shows the Hornet FCS, but seems somebody over at the "military aviation" forum posted one a few years back.

Nobody could believe the C.G. numbers for the Viper in 1979.

The Block 1 and prototype had ZERO stick grip movement. The Block 5 introduced the 1/8 inch movement "so we could tell if we were commanding the max". Cracks me up. Guys still pulled 50 - 60 pounds, and the "stop" was not obvious. Helped in formation, but that was all.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 17:58
by blindpilot
Concerning the Eagle variants

I'll defer in a second to any F-15 types that wish to jump in, but I believe my brother (F-15A pilot, Sq Cmd Cs, Group Cmd with Es etc.) told me in a war story that the F-15 was semi-FBW which was a base normal hydraulic system with a "CAS?" switch, electronic FCS computer overlaid. I remember him saying some procedures had them turning "CAS?" off. Anyway ? semi-FBW? with an ?on-off? switch? This is not authoritative unless I text him, and as a contractor now He probably would charge me $200 an hour for an answer LOL. :D

BP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 18:23
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So in a nutshell, The F-14 is "Stable", the F-15C and Legacy Hornet are "neutral stable", the Strike Eagle is "neutral", the Super Hornet is "neutral stable to neutral unstable", and the Viper is "Unstable". The FCS augments stability on the non Vipers here, but it has limits to what it can do. It doesn't tolerate aft CG loads well.


Thanks for that - good post


Looking at the NATOPS I have for the Legacy Hornet it seems to use computer control primarily but retains mechanical links for backup conditions.

Although there is no aerodynamic feedback to the stick and rudder pedals, the effect is simulated by flight control
computer scheduling of control surface deflection versus pilot input as a function of flight conditions. Normally, inputs to the hydraulic actuators are provided by the two flight control computers (FCC A and FCC B) through the full authority control augmentation system (CAS). A direct electrical link (DEL) automatically backs up the CAS. DEL is normally a digital system but has an analog mode for backup aileron and rudder control. If digital DEL fails, a mechanical link (MECH) automatically provides roll and pitch control through a direct mechanical input from the stick to the stabilator actuators. MECH bypasses both flight control computers and the stabilator actuator servo valves.


....

2.8.2.10 Mechanical Linkage (MECH). Mechanical linkage provides backup control of the stabilators for pitch and roll control. A MECH ON caution is displayed on the DDI.

Legacy.JPG




The FA-18EF NATOPS though suggests Super just has a FBW system (diagram only has inputs to the FCC)

2.10 FCS - FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM
The flight control system (FCS) is a fly-by-wire, full authority control augmentation system (CAS). The FCS provides four basic functions: aircraft stability, aircraft control, departure resistance, and structural loads management. Since the basic airframe is statically neutral to slightly unstable, a primary function of the FCS is to maintain aircraft stability at all flight conditions. The FCS also provides full authority control of the aircraft by implementing the basic flight control laws which determine aircraft response to pilot inputs. Pilot inputs from the stick and rudder pedals send electrical commands to two quad-redundant, digital flight control computers (FCC A and FCC B).
There is no mechanical linkage between the stick and rudder pedals and the flight control surfaces. FCC software determines what commands are sent to the various flight control surfaces to exercise pitch, roll, and yaw control of the aircraft. Additionally, the FCS provides departure resistance by either refusing to accept or by tailoring pilot inputs that would otherwise lead to an aircraft departure.
Lastly, the FCS provides structural loads management by limiting g-available to prevent an aircraft overstress or by retracting flight control surfaces at airspeeds that would otherwise exceed the structural limits of the airframe.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 18:36
by Gums
Salute!

Far as I know, the early and later Eagles were basic McAir designs and maybe had a switch to kick in some augmentors or limiters or whatever.

The Voodoo had an actual "limiter" like the Viper I flew 15 years later and more about that later. In "normal", we had a yaw damper and aileron-rudder interconnect and a pneumatic bellows doofer on the tail to keep us from pulling too many gees at too low AoA. We also had a "bob weight" at the bottom of our stick that increased the required back-pressure to pull more gees.

Was that fly by wire? Nope.

Then due to the pitch-up characteristecs of the Voodoo, we had an actual pitch AOA limiter and gee limiter when in "control stick steering". The CSS was basically an autopilot mode that allowed you to release the stick and maintain a constant attitude. We used it when doing a "coupled" intercept where the radar system commanded the plane to keep the "dot centered" and all I had to do was hold the trigger down. McAir improved it and we got "CSL", which was all the above but with pitch rate and AoA and gee limiters. I shot my first Genie using it in the "coupled" mode.

Finally, we got MCSL - manual command stick limiter. So figure late 1965. That switch basically gave us the Viper control laws for pitch, but not yaw or roll. You could pull hard as you wanted but you only got "x" pitch rate and "x" gee, and most important "x" AoA. Sucker kept you below the bad AoA and also limted gee to one tenth of what would get you in trouble. Took 65 pounds of stick to get past the MCSL. Oh yeah, we had a "pusher" of 28 pounds that looked at pitch rate and then AoA before it snatched the stick outta your hand. Additionally, the jet shook like hell and rocked when anywhere within a degree or more of the critical AoA. The Double Ugly did the same, and the Sluf buffet was less but still there warning you. Viper and Deuce were smooth as silk.

Sorry, but never flew a plane with two tails. I apologize for flying the Voodoo and Dragonfly that had two motors, but orders were orders. I always liked the single seat, single engine, single tail planes. Knights of old had one heart and rode steeds with one heart and a single tail. So I toast the "one hearts".

Gums sends...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 18:40
by basher54321
blindpilot wrote:Concerning the Eagle variants

I'll defer in a second to any F-15 types that wish to jump in, but I believe my brother (F-15A pilot, Sq Cmd Cs, Group Cmd with Es etc.) told me in a war story that the F-15 was semi-FBW which was a base normal hydraulic system with a "CAS?" switch, electronic FCS computer overlaid. I remember him saying some procedures had them turning "CAS?" off. Anyway ? semi-FBW? with an ?on-off? switch? This is not authoritative unless I text him, and as a contractor now He probably would charge me $200 an hour for an answer LOL. :D

BP


Get confusing because the F-14 and F-15 both have computers controlling flight systems (think the F-111 did as well for the wings)

The F-15E manual describes it as being a hydromechnical control system (mechanical links & hydraulic actuators) that normally work together with the CAS (Control Augmentation System) - although it states they can both provide adequate control for flight alone (e.g. basic control can still be provided by the CAS with the loss of any or all mech links)

CAS.JPG

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 18:44
by Gums
Salute!

Nice work, Basher.

Good to see the Super Hornet joining the other folks with real FBW.

Gums....

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 18:53
by basher54321
Gums wrote:Salute!

Nice work, Basher.

Good to see the Super Hornet joining the other folks with real FBW.

Gums....


Anytime sir!

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 19:57
by blindpilot
basher54321 wrote:
blindpilot wrote:Concerning the Eagle variants

I'll defer in a second to any F-15 types that wish to jump in, but I believe ...that the F-15 was semi-FBW which was a base normal hydraulic system with a "CAS?" switch, electronic FCS computer overlaid. I remember him saying some procedures had them turning "CAS?" off. Anyway ? semi-FBW? with an ?on-off? switch?...

BP


Get confusing because the F-14 and F-15 both have computers controlling flight systems (think the F-111 did as well for the wings)

The F-15E manual describes it as being a hydromechnical control system (mechanical links & hydraulic actuators) that normally work together with the CAS (Control Augmentation System) - although it states they can both provide adequate control for flight alone (e.g. basic control can still be provided by the CAS with the loss of any or all mech links)
..


Thanks that helps. The war story was something about having to land with one axis CAS only or something like that, and was why I was thinking semi-FBW.

Anyway Gums and Basher thanks. You guys are always on target and that's one reason why I hang around this board. :D

BP

PS Its really sad when the war story about something 35 years ago is like 20 years old and you're not sure you remember the "remembering" right No hope for recalling the actual event. ROFL

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 21:53
by Gums
Salute Blind!!

PS Its really sad when the war story about something 35 years ago is like 20 years old and you're not sure you remember the "remembering" right No hope for recalling the actual event. ROFL


Your thot is why the A-37 Association published a book that went to the Library of Congress, AF Museum, USAFA, and elsewhere. Many of our stories were on letters to home or actual diaries or logbooks. So we started collecting stuff back in 1992. Here's a pic of the cover, and second edition is being printed now. Kindle and Amazon copies available soon.

Image

Gums sends..

P.S. My opinion of worst fighter was the TFX back in 1965 and 1966. If there ws any project that was FUBAR, that was it. The silver lining on the cloud was when the Navy bailed and USAF decided the sucker was not a fighter but a bomb truck. Meanwhile, USAF was flying the Thud and Hun and Double Ugly as bomb trucks, Weasels, A2A and so forth. And hence the Warthog concept developed and then the Eagle, and finally the Viper. My beloved Sluf carried the load in early 70's and would have been very effective earlier in 'nam. The Navy model did well in 'raqi 1, huh?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2015, 23:41
by zenith
zero-one wrote:Well first off, a Cobra is done at low energy states. Secondly, even the American officer at Redflag 2008 said that the Su-30MKI is a little better than the F-15. So yeah I would rather be in a Flanker if the Eagle is the only other option.

Point is, I wasn't comapring who would win a fight, the F-35 can still win due to SA superiority. But right now, if the JPO fails to address the performance issue, the F-35 will have the reputation of being at the low end of the performance scale.


Not sure which video you watched. I remembered F15 preformed much better than SU30MKI in red flag 2008. You can search youtube video.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2015, 01:01
by popcorn
So is the F-15SA a true FBW aircraft ?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2015, 03:55
by aaam
Well, here I am returning late to the party again. Again, my apologies, I just don't get back here as much as I'd like Let me offer some food for thought on the observations posted regarding my comment on AIM-9X Block II and “over the shoulder” shots, a relatively new concept that is only now becoming feasible.

Yes, Block II now has LOAL, a vital necessity for an OTS shot along with the ability to utilize AIM-9X in a HOBS mode. These are not automatic, just because you’ve hung an AIM-9X on the pylon. It does take additional changes in software and programming the fire control system. Just ask the F-22. F-22 especially needs LOAL (cued by the radar), because by the nature of how it’s mounted a -9X will find half the sky blocked by the fuselage of the Raptor prior to launch.

The issue I’m raising is the actual performance of the missile. The Block II would have used the same electronics as the Block II. The improvement would be in the performance of the missile itself. To do an OTS shot at a significant distance is going to require a lot of energy to hack that turn to go after a target that is behind the 9-3 o’clock line at the moment of launch. That, along with the insensitive munitions warhead is what the Block III would have provided, trading off range.

Spazsinbad: It appears that the video you provided demonstrates -9X’s significant improvement over -9M. We see the seeker head’s much wider acquisition view relative to -9M, and also the much greater turn capability of the -9X, mostly courtesy of the addition of TVC to the -9M motor.

Respectfully, though, those don’t appear to be OTS shots. Although the lockons were at much greater angles and the turns much tighter than what was possible before, it appears that acquisition was made in when the target was still in the forward hemisphere. This only makes sense. In 2000, even the -9X didn’t have LOAL—that came later with Block II. Plus, there was no way to cue the seeker where to look when in the aft hemisphere. With DAS, we will now have that capability, I’m just questioning whether the Block II will have sufficient energy to make that turn, acquire the target and travel out far enough, since obviously a missile making that kind of change in heading uses up a lot of energy. DAS will allow a target at say, 7 o’clock to be targeted, a game changer in A2A. ASRAAM and Python (I don’t know about IRIS-T) seem to have it, but Block II I understand still has the same total energy as -9M, again a function of going with the lowest cost proposal submitted.

Regarding OTS for AIM-120, not sure that was ever considered in the design. It goes farther but doesn’t run as tight’; doesn’t need to. Also, how would you cue it as to where to look? Given that with the exception of Gripen E, AESAs have a narrower field of view that the mechanical systems they replace, you’re going to have to do some serious nose pointing to acquire the target so you’ll know (and can tell AIM-120) where to look. With a radar guided missile, if you have no aft looking radar, or even particularly wide looking forward looking, how do you tell AIM-120 where to head initially? Again, it’s all about energy.


Bring_it_on: This is not meant to be a sarcastic answer, please don’t take it as such. Saying, “…the answer is simple add more protection or upgrade the seeker so that it performs better against electronic warfare.” is like the old Steve Martin comedy routine, on the steps how to be a millionaire and not pay any taxes. “Step 1: First, get a million dollars”. Adding that kind of protection is expensive, time consuming, adds weight and can be countered faster than you can keep doing it. Keep in mind that the adversary is not trying to jam the formidable radar in your fighter, but is using his full force against the relatively modest seeker in the nose of the AIM-120, a much easier task, given the power he will have available. There’s only so much weight and change you can put into the tightly packed missile. Advances in technology now permit this concept of targeting the missile itself to be feasible. That’s why USN was looking towards using the superb AIM-9X seeker on a longer ranged system.

And for those who keep bringing up giving up stealth to carry an IR missile (although the Brits are working to get ASRAAM internal), I repeat: If they didn’t think it was worth the trade after the initial stealthy missions, why would they put the rail (and the other external stations) there?


I’m going to submerge again; I wish I could get back her more often.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2015, 04:59
by smsgtmac
I kind of buried the lede while taking down yet another regurgition of 'Axe is Boring's hit-piece for thread purposes HERE, but you can scroll down past the lead-in to the "palate cleanser" part and get to where I show proof that not only was the LM/JPO response to Axe's hit piece entirely consistent with High AoA test plans and objectives and NOT simply something made up in reaction to same, but that the kind of testing/development Axe was claiming was going on doesn't happen in DT, but is where OT takes over in High AoA testing.
I found the link while researching 'Supermaneuverability' topics for a comprehensive rundown on same.
BTW and FWIW, as far as I can tell there has been an infinitely greater ratio of actual BVR combat encounters and kills to Post-Stall maneuvering WVR encounters and kills in the real world to-date....because you can't divide by ZERO. The downside is that after the first one occurs, advocates can claim an infinite growth rate in the demand. :wink:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2015, 11:28
by cantaz
aaam wrote:With DAS, we will now have that capability, I’m just questioning whether the Block II will have sufficient energy to make that turn, acquire the target and travel out far enough, since obviously a missile making that kind of change in heading uses up a lot of energy. DAS will allow a target at say, 7 o’clock to be targeted, a game changer in A2A. ASRAAM and Python (I don’t know about IRIS-T) seem to have it, but Block II I understand still has the same total energy as -9M, again a function of going with the lowest cost proposal submitted.


For when you come back next:

OTS is a defensive shot. If the ranging is opening, there's no immediate need to try an OTS, you have time/space to turnaround and shoot the target more conventionally. You resort to OTS when the target has a positional advantage (behind your 3/9 line), range control (and he's choosing to be close or closer) and threatening to achieve an advantage in orientation (his nose leading you or close enough to you to take a shot, assuming no HOBS on his part). With those conditions satisfied, the lack of energy on the part of the missile performing the OTS is somewhat compensated by the target's own closing speed and vector.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2015, 18:51
by zero-one
zenith wrote: Not sure which video you watched. I remembered F15 preformed much better than SU30MKI in red flag 2008. You can search youtube video.


We were probably watching the same video, if I remember correctly his words were (and I'm paraphrasing here)
we were beating them (Su-30MKIs) in our F-15s that by the end of the day, they didn't want any more 1 v 1 stuff, and these weren't
even cleanly configured Eagles, these were F-15s with 2 fuel tanks hanging off the wings, they were flying clean except for 2 wing tip missile rails.

Now the bad thing is congress is gona hear about this and say, well great we don't need anymore Raptors the F-15 can do the job...
No,no,no,no,no...

We used to be this high compared to them (puts 1 hand at around eye level)
now they've caught up and they're at this level (puts his other hand slightly higher at around forehead level).
If your wondering where the Raptor is its way up at this level (fully extends arm above the head)"


So if I'm getting this correctly he's basically saying that, the MKI, at least is his eyes, was slightly better than the eagles.
what tipped the scales in the eagle's favor was the competent pilots who flew them.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 00:07
by popcorn
Consider the entire performance envelope. Eagle will perform better in some parts of the envelope, Flanker will better in others. So given equal pilots, each would strive to maximize his strengths and capitalize on the other's weakness.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 00:45
by borg
Popcorn@

The Colonel comments were extremly vauge.
The -MKI was a tad better vs our jets parts could be from the fact that a fully topped up Flanker has its EM limitations.
and that both F-16/F15 with two empty wet bags, simply outperforms the MKI in such state.

The Colonel didn't seem to bother mention just how much gas the MKI could take internaly..
He said -the MKI is a huge bird.
And he said -we sent the MKI up first from Nelis AB, cause they could do that..

But then again, he was addressing an crowd of AF wets.
No reason for him to go all analytic and 100%objective.

The Indian pilots was inexpirienced, simple as that.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 00:48
by sergei
zero-one wrote:
zenith wrote: Not sure which video you watched. I remembered F15 preformed much better than SU30MKI in red flag 2008. You can search youtube video.


We were probably watching the same video, if I remember correctly his words were (and I'm paraphrasing here)
we were beating them (Su-30MKIs) in our F-15s that by the end of the day, they didn't want any more 1 v 1 stuff, and these weren't
even cleanly configured Eagles, these were F-15s with 2 fuel tanks hanging off the wings, they were flying clean except for 2 wing tip missile rails.

Now the bad thing is congress is gona hear about this and say, well great we don't need anymore Raptors the F-15 can do the job...
No,no,no,no,no...

We used to be this high compared to them (puts 1 hand at around eye level)
now they've caught up and they're at this level (puts his other hand slightly higher at around forehead level).
If your wondering where the Raptor is its way up at this level (fully extends arm above the head)"


So if I'm getting this correctly he's basically saying that, the MKI, at least is his eyes, was slightly better than the eagles.
what tipped the scales in the eagle's favor was the competent pilots who flew them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w
0.20-0.37

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 00:51
by popcorn
borg wrote:Popcorn@

The Colonel comments were extremly vauge.
The -MKI was a tad better vs our jets parts could be from the fact that a fully topped up Flanker has its EM limitations.
and that both F-16/F15 with two empty wet bags, simply outperforms the MKI in such state.

The Colonel didn't seem to bother mention just how much gas the MKI could take internaly..
He said -the MKI is a huge bird.
And he said -we sent the MKI up first from Nelis AB, cause they could do that..

But then again, he was addressing an crowd of AF wets.
No reason for him to go all analytic and 100%objective.

The Indian pilots was inexpirienced, simple as that.


I fall back on my comments which AFAIK are reasonable and accurate.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 00:55
by charlielima223
popcorn wrote:Consider the entire performance envelope. Eagle will perform better in some parts of the envelope, Flanker will better in others. So given equal pilots, each would strive to maximize his strengths and capitalize on the other's weakness.


I'm always under the impression the F-15 would have the better sustained turn and vertical climb but the Flanker would have the superior ITR and roll rates.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 00:57
by sergei
borg wrote:Popcorn@

The Colonel comments were extremly vauge.
The -MKI was a tad better vs our jets parts could be from the fact that a fully topped up Flanker has its EM limitations.
and that both F-16/F15 with two empty wet bags, simply outperforms the MKI in such state.

The Colonel didn't seem to bother mention just how much gas the MKI could take internaly..
He said -the MKI is a huge bird.
And he said -we sent the MKI up first from Nelis AB, cause they could do that..

But then again, he was addressing an crowd of AF wets.
No reason for him to go all analytic and 100%objective.

The Indian pilots was inexpirienced, simple as that.

"crowd of AF wets"
Air Force veterans ?
Now I do not remember exactly but it was either journalists or community aviation enthusiasts or both.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 01:05
by popcorn
sergei wrote:
borg wrote:Popcorn@

The Colonel comments were extremly vauge.
The -MKI was a tad better vs our jets parts could be from the fact that a fully topped up Flanker has its EM limitations.
and that both F-16/F15 with two empty wet bags, simply outperforms the MKI in such state.

The Colonel didn't seem to bother mention just how much gas the MKI could take internaly..
He said -the MKI is a huge bird.
And he said -we sent the MKI up first from Nelis AB, cause they could do that..

But then again, he was addressing an crowd of AF wets.
No reason for him to go all analytic and 100%objective.

The Indian pilots was inexpirienced, simple as that.

"crowd of AF wets"
Air Force veterans ?
Now I do not remember exactly but it was either journalists or community aviation enthusiasts or both.

Apparently you don't read SmsgtMac's posts. He did confirm who the audience was and it was neither of your guesses. Better luck next time.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 01:22
by popcorn
charlielima223 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Consider the entire performance envelope. Eagle will perform better in some parts of the envelope, Flanker will better in others. So given equal pilots, each would strive to maximize his strengths and capitalize on the other's weakness.


I'm always under the impression the F-15 would have the better sustained turn and vertical climb but the Flanker would have the superior ITR and roll rates.

You fight to your strengths, just like Swede Vejtasa and John Leppla. Dauntless dive bombers laying waste to fearsome Japanese Zeros in A2A. Two aircraft that could not have been more different.
http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/coralsea.htm

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 01:40
by sergei
charlielima223 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Consider the entire performance envelope. Eagle will perform better in some parts of the envelope, Flanker will better in others. So given equal pilots, each would strive to maximize his strengths and capitalize on the other's weakness.


I'm always under the impression the F-15 would have the better sustained turn and vertical climb but the Flanker would have the superior ITR and roll rates.

http://lockon.co.uk/img/technology/pic1_9.jpg
Su-27 at altitudes of 200-7000 m has superiority over the F-15 up to 30% when maneuvering with the permissible angles of attack, which corresponds to the Su-27 indicated speed 600-300 km / h.
Excellence in 1.3 times means that the Su-27, with the complication in the fight about
identical heights and speeds and high accelerations will be 1.3 times the radius of the smaller, high speed turn and less time performing the specified energetic
maneuver that allows short-term increase of the angular velocity of turn
on the enemy and reducing time to the use of weapons or You are a
move out of the enemy's attack, when he reached the milestone of opening fire. Note that when
attack with access to the marginal modes of operation (low speed, high angles of attack) we need
walk to remember that a significant role in the success of the attack resistance and begin to play
controllability of the aircraft, so it is necessary to know these features and skillfully wield
piloting a fighter.
Most limit drawn by overloading the Su-27 and F-15 match at all altitudes approximately the same true speed: 1000-1100 km / h. However, the greatest angular speed of rotation on the steady path bends with the influence of the flight speed match the true speed of 850-1000 km / h
At speeds of more than the indicated 10-15% superiority of the F-15.
When there is an overload 5 advantage the F-15, and it increases slightly with increasing height.
Consequently, under vigorous maneuvering at high altitudes has advantage F-15.

Su-27vsF-15

http://gyazo.com/1c3af813bc6c5cc1b413e456fbc029ff


Su-27vsF-16

http://gyazo.com/affb30e80cf13ad76c9586e5eb29410a

During the comparative assessment made that the planes are filling half the fuel in internal tanks, operation of engines - a full afterburner

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 01:48
by sergei
popcorn wrote:
sergei wrote:
borg wrote:Popcorn@

The Colonel comments were extremly vauge.
The -MKI was a tad better vs our jets parts could be from the fact that a fully topped up Flanker has its EM limitations.
and that both F-16/F15 with two empty wet bags, simply outperforms the MKI in such state.

The Colonel didn't seem to bother mention just how much gas the MKI could take internaly..
He said -the MKI is a huge bird.
And he said -we sent the MKI up first from Nelis AB, cause they could do that..

But then again, he was addressing an crowd of AF wets.
No reason for him to go all analytic and 100%objective.

The Indian pilots was inexpirienced, simple as that.

"crowd of AF wets"
Air Force veterans ?
Now I do not remember exactly but it was either journalists or community aviation enthusiasts or both.

Apparently you don't read SmsgtMac's posts. He did confirm who the audience was and it was neither of your guesses. Better luck next time.

Point this post maybe I really missed it.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 01:56
by popcorn
sergei wrote: SmsgtMac's posts. He did confirm who the audience was and it was neither of your guesses. Better luck next time.

Point this post maybe I really missed it.[/quote]
You can search for it. Hard to believe you missed it considering your prodigious reading speed. Maybe you should slow down a bit.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 02:53
by sergei
popcorn wrote:
sergei wrote: SmsgtMac's posts. He did confirm who the audience was and it was neither of your guesses. Better luck next time.

Point this post maybe I really missed it.

You can search for it. Hard to believe you missed it considering your prodigious reading speed. Maybe you should slow down a bit.[/quote]

If this is the post which he did a year and a half ago then no credible professionals(those who knew what was going on) was indicated.
P/S If it was another post point in which topic,because despite the opinion of some people, I do not get money for being here and I have other things to do.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 03:14
by smsgtmac
Heh. :roll:
Hint: search "whiny Grievance Queens being a downside of any culture obsessed with ‘face’."
Should lead you right to it. It was soooooooooo long ago /sarc.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 03:19
by XanderCrews
sergei wrote:I have other things to do.


Don't let us keep you

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 03:42
by XanderCrews
smsgtmac wrote:Heh. :roll:
Hint: search "whiny Grievance Queens being a downside of any culture obsessed with ‘face’."
Should lead you right to it. It was soooooooooo long ago /sarc.


LOL man misidentifies engine manufacturer and suddenly everything he said is invalid.

You can't make this stuff up :D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 10:15
by borg
charlielima223 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Consider the entire performance envelope. Eagle will perform better in some parts of the envelope, Flanker will better in others. So given equal pilots, each would strive to maximize his strengths and capitalize on the other's weakness.


I'm always under the impression the F-15 would have the better sustained turn and vertical climb but the Flanker would have the superior ITR and roll rates.


I do not think roll rate is something the Flanker is particular good at. Its respons is also a little more sluggish a times.


Its simply not possible to compare jets in a simplistic way.
It get complex.
If you take F-15 and Flanker.
The tick airfoil of the Flanker(vs tinner f-15 airfoil) should have a huge negative impact on its performance, but due to other aerodynamic features, it gives the Flanker a very good allround performance, both in ITR nd STR.

It all comes down to the weight(fuel and ordinance).
A Flanker at 30% fuel have a Great STR, and could very well stay inside an F-16 turn.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 14:04
by munny
sergei wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Consider the entire performance envelope. Eagle will perform better in some parts of the envelope, Flanker will better in others. So given equal pilots, each would strive to maximize his strengths and capitalize on the other's weakness.


I'm always under the impression the F-15 would have the better sustained turn and vertical climb but the Flanker would have the superior ITR and roll rates.

http://lockon.co.uk/img/technology/pic1_9.jpg
Su-27 at altitudes of 200-7000 m has superiority over the F-15 up to 30% when maneuvering with the permissible angles of attack, which corresponds to the Su-27 indicated speed 600-300 km / h.
Excellence in 1.3 times means that the Su-27, with the complication in the fight about
identical heights and speeds and high accelerations will be 1.3 times the radius of the smaller, high speed turn and less time performing the specified energetic
maneuver that allows short-term increase of the angular velocity of turn
on the enemy and reducing time to the use of weapons or You are a
move out of the enemy's attack, when he reached the milestone of opening fire. Note that when
attack with access to the marginal modes of operation (low speed, high angles of attack) we need
walk to remember that a significant role in the success of the attack resistance and begin to play
controllability of the aircraft, so it is necessary to know these features and skillfully wield
piloting a fighter.
Most limit drawn by overloading the Su-27 and F-15 match at all altitudes approximately the same true speed: 1000-1100 km / h. However, the greatest angular speed of rotation on the steady path bends with the influence of the flight speed match the true speed of 850-1000 km / h
At speeds of more than the indicated 10-15% superiority of the F-15.
When there is an overload 5 advantage the F-15, and it increases slightly with increasing height.
Consequently, under vigorous maneuvering at high altitudes has advantage F-15.

Su-27vsF-15

http://gyazo.com/1c3af813bc6c5cc1b413e456fbc029ff


Su-27vsF-16

http://gyazo.com/affb30e80cf13ad76c9586e5eb29410a

During the comparative assessment made that the planes are filling half the fuel in internal tanks, operation of engines - a full afterburner


Did you just quote the instruction manual from a computer game?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 14:09
by sergei
munny wrote:Consider the entire performance envelope. Eagle will perform better in some parts of the envelope, Flanker will better in others. So given equal pilots, each would strive to maximize his strengths and capitalize on the other's weakness.

I'm always under the impression the F-15 would have the better sustained turn and vertical climb but the Flanker would have the superior ITR and roll rates.
http://lockon.co.uk/img/technology/pic1_9.jpg
Su-27 at altitudes of 200-7000 m has superiority over the F-15 up to 30% when maneuvering with the permissible angles of attack, which corresponds to the Su-27 indicated speed 600-300 km / h.
Excellence in 1.3 times means that the Su-27, with the complication in the fight about
identical heights and speeds and high accelerations will be 1.3 times the radius of the smaller, high speed turn and less time performing the specified energetic
maneuver that allows short-term increase of the angular velocity of turn
on the enemy and reducing time to the use of weapons or You are a
move out of the enemy's attack, when he reached the milestone of opening fire. Note that when
attack with access to the marginal modes of operation (low speed, high angles of attack) we need
walk to remember that a significant role in the success of the attack resistance and begin to play
controllability of the aircraft, so it is necessary to know these features and skillfully wield
piloting a fighter.
Most limit drawn by overloading the Su-27 and F-15 match at all altitudes approximately the same true speed: 1000-1100 km / h. However, the greatest angular speed of rotation on the steady path bends with the influence of the flight speed match the true speed of 850-1000 km / h
At speeds of more than the indicated 10-15% superiority of the F-15.
When there is an overload 5 advantage the F-15, and it increases slightly with increasing height.
Consequently, under vigorous maneuvering at high altitudes has advantage F-15.

Su-27vsF-15

http://gyazo.com/1c3af813bc6c5cc1b413e456fbc029ff


Su-27vsF-16

http://gyazo.com/affb30e80cf13ad76c9586e5eb29410a

During the comparative assessment made that the planes are filling half the fuel in internal tanks, operation of engines - a full afterburner
Did you just quote the instruction manual from a computer game?


"Сравнение маневренных возможностей Су-27 и самолётов НАТО (F-15, F-16, Tornado G-2) МО СССР"

"Compare maneuvering capabilities of the Su-27 and aircraft NATO (F-15, F-16, Tornado G-2) USSR Ministry of Defense"

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2015, 16:16
by zero-one
I'm under no illusion that the F-15 is superior to the Flanker in some parts of the performance envelope.

Remember that when the ATF program was concieved, one of the primary objectives was to create an aircraft that would be significantly
more maneuverable than the T-10 and any of it's possible evolutions.

one of the reasons for this was because according to the intelligence of the time,
the Flanker had the energy and high G performance of the F-16,
high AOA performance like the F/A-18
and the Speed and altitude performance of the F-15.

Even in the Redflag video of 2008 it was mentioned that under those combat conditions, the MKI could sustain a 22deg\sec turn rate,
while the Eagle could sustain 15-16 deg\sec turn rate.

This is not surprising as the Flanker was created roughly 10 years after the 1st Eagles went into service, many advancements in aerodynamics have taken place.
Relaxed Static stability
Blended Body and wing
Vortex lifting surfaces
FBW

All of these were absent when the final aerodynamic layout of the Eagle was drafted. So it's not surprising if the Flanker will outperform an F-15 in an aerodynamic stand point.
The F-15 might still enjoy some advantages perhaps, but this is likely marginal or in a thin slice of the envelope.

The F-16 on the other hand is different bird altogether, in a sustained high G turning fight, it can give a Flanker all it wants and then some more.

Then again, in the hands of competent pilots, supposedly inferior aircraft have beaten their superior counterparts time and again.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 05:22
by spazsinbad
:doh: TWO WAYS to report the same quote? Weird huh: As they pontificate at AvWeak "read and discuss(ted)" :mrgreen:
“...I love the F-16. It was a great airplane. Still is pretty good, but i would not want to be in a fight against an F-35....”
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunf ... attackers/
&
"...I love the F-16, I think it's a great airplane," he said. "I would not want to be in a fight with an F-35B against an F-16...."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... ation.html

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 06:49
by charlielima223
spazsinbad wrote::doh: TWO WAYS to report the same quote? Weird huh: As they pontificate at AvWeak "read and discuss(ted)" :mrgreen:
“...I love the F-16. It was a great airplane. Still is pretty good, but i would not want to be in a fight against an F-35....”
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunf ... attackers/
&
"...I love the F-16, I think it's a great airplane," he said. "I would not want to be in a fight with an F-35B against an F-16...."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... ation.html


Play on words. It reminds me of that whole Typhoon F-22 squabble.

"The BVR capabilities of the F-22 are overwhelming. I couldn't get within 20mi of the Raptor without getting targeted first"

"The BVR capabilities of the F-22 are overwhelming. If my plane does everything right I wont get within 20mi of the F-22"

:doh:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2015, 06:51
by spazsinbad
We can all play with words - and I do regularly - but reporting a QUOTE accurately is SHIRLEY required? Dontcha Know.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 16:14
by spazsinbad
The last paragraph is quoted below (usual bloviating for the sake of making as much words as possible to print otherwise - but youse be the judge) could have been the first paragraph - to save a lot of reading time. So anyway the two PDF pages attached from CAM Sep 2015. :devil: And I did not know this (I'm not a big fan of CAM) so perhaps donning a poopysuit is required rig for reading this publication [dewtoo AxeMan being a contributor]? :mrgreen:
The F-35 Dogfight
Sep 2015 Jon Lake

"WHEN COMBAT AIRCRAFT columnist David Axe published extracts of a report into F-35A Lightning II high angle-of-attack
maneuvers on his ‘War is Boring’ blog,...

...It’s also the case that the aforementioned engagement was intended ‘to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system’, giving the Lightning II the opportunity to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, while handling in a positive and predictable manner. The F-16D involved in the trial was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. The aim was to gather data, and not to win the fight."

INSET:"Among the most concerning elements of the report’s findings concerns the lack of space inside the cockpit for the pilot to move his head and bring his helmet-mounted sight to bear on the target in the rear quarter. Lockheed Martin" [LM refers to photo & not quote. The pilot does not have to move his head to target the bogey]


Source: Combat Aircraft Monthly Magazine September 2015

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 16:43
by spazsinbad
Found the AXE Filf right at the end of CAM so that page is attached. Not too bad actually but for a few silly pathetic exaggerated exclamations - par for the course I guess.

THE F-35 DESPERATELY NEEDS NEW WEAPONS DAVID AXE & JOSEPH TREVITHICK Combat Aircraft Monthly Sep 2015

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 17:29
by bring_it_on
The J-20 carries 12 Missiles?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 17:37
by SpudmanWP
Or 6 AAMs and 6 2k bombs?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 17:43
by sferrin
bring_it_on wrote:The J-20 carries 12 Missiles?


He should have made it an even 20. You know, J-20, 20 AAMs? :doh:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 18:33
by bring_it_on
Indian media reports of a 12-0 exchange ratio in BFM between the Su-30MKI and the Typhoon. I wonder how many instant Cyber-Air-Combat experts will emerge from this development ;)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 18:42
by sferrin
bring_it_on wrote:Indian media reports of a 12-0 exchange ratio in BFM between the Su-30MKI and the Typhoon. I wonder how many instant Cyber-Air-Combat experts will emerge from this development ;)



Will David Axe tell us what a miserable failure the Typhoon is? I'm thinking not. It will be interesting to compare the reactions from the usual suspects though. They went on like a bunch of screeching harpies about the "combat trials" the F-35 "lost" to the F-16. I wonder what they'll say about ACTUAL exercise results between the Flanker and Typhoon. Get ready for massive amounts of hypocrisy.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 18:49
by bring_it_on
The one advantage that David Axe is unlikely to claim is that the F-35 has an infinite amount of greater internal bay capacity compared to both the Su-30 and Typhoon ;)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 20:59
by luke_sandoz
sferrin wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:Indian media reports of a 12-0 exchange ratio in BFM between the Su-30MKI and the Typhoon. I wonder how many instant Cyber-Air-Combat experts will emerge from this development ;)



Will David Axe tell us what a miserable failure the Typhoon is? I'm thinking not. It will be interesting to compare the reactions from the usual suspects though. They went on like a bunch of screeching harpies about the "combat trials" the F-35 "lost" to the F-16. I wonder what they'll say about ACTUAL exercise results between the Flanker and Typhoon. Get ready for massive amounts of hypocrisy.



Boiling this down to its base, you end up with "David Axe is a miserable failure"

There, case closed.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2015, 21:15
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Found the AXE Filf right at the end of CAM so that page is attached. Not too bad actually but for a few silly pathetic exaggerated exclamations - par for the course I guess.

THE F-35 DESPERATELY NEEDS NEW WEAPONS DAVID AXE & JOSEPH TREVITHICK Combat Aircraft Monthly Sep 2015


Thank you.

Why does no one mention that the super hornet operates on the same concept of WVR? For some reason this is made to look F-35 unique. As if the Rhino wasn't going to use HOBS and helmet cueing

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2015, 00:16
by charlielima223
XanderCrews wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Found the AXE Filf right at the end of CAM so that page is attached. Not too bad actually but for a few silly pathetic exaggerated exclamations - par for the course I guess.

THE F-35 DESPERATELY NEEDS NEW WEAPONS DAVID AXE & JOSEPH TREVITHICK Combat Aircraft Monthly Sep 2015


Thank you.

Why does no one mention that the super hornet operates on the same concept of WVR? For some reason this is made to look F-35 unique. As if the Rhino wasn't going to use HOBS and helmet cueing


Lockheed test pilot, former F-14 pilot, and Top Gun graduate Bill Gigliotti did make a statement during a round table talk that US military fighter aircraft in general need a longer range weapon with better kinematic performance over the AIM-120D.

As far as the F-35 is concerned with WVR performance I would have to make an uneducated conjecture based on comments from the pilots. Given all the comments I would assume that the F-35's performance is somewhere between an F/A-18C/D and an F-16 Block 50. It would have the nose pointing of the Hornet but would accelerate and regain energy better than the Hornet. Its no Raptor but its no slouch either. If the F-35 is not maneuverable according to so many of the critics and haters :bang: , than neither are the Hornet and Viper.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2015, 00:46
by XanderCrews
I remember people freaking out when the Super Hornet was coming online everyone was whining about its kinematics and close in fighting and how it would never be a Tomcat, and the official response was basically "we don't care because we are using new weapon systems and avionics now"

If this was a conversation about "should we do this or not" that was decided even before the JSF and thats my point. If we want to question the way things are done WVR, that conversation extends well beyond the JSF, which is the latest in a series.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2015, 02:31
by SpudmanWP
charlielima223 wrote:Lockheed test pilot, former F-14 pilot, and Top Gun graduate Bill Gigliotti did make a statement during a round table talk that US military fighter aircraft in general need a longer range weapon with better kinematic performance over the AIM-120D.



ok.....

{Boeing Phantom Works President Darryl Davis} also disclosed that the Phantoms had conducted four flight tests under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Triple Target Terminator (T3) program. The test vehicles, about the size of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, flew "faster and farther" than an Amraam, Davis said, but he did not provide any other details.

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... w-projects

Next

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2015, 03:09
by spazsinbad
Indian AF claims 'Sus agin Typhoids' refuted here also: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 44466.html

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2015, 16:51
by popcorn
The gang at AvWeek making hay on the "dogfight" that never was. They would know it was a development test yet do not explain the context. These are aviation professionals?

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast ... and-beyond

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2015, 16:53
by sferrin
popcorn wrote:The gang at AvWeek making hay on the "dogfight" that never was. They would know it was a development test yet do not explain the context. These are aviation professionals?

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast ... and-beyond


Somebody should ask them about the Typhoon getting demolished by Indian Flankers. :lmao: Watch that spin machine take off.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2015, 17:32
by SpudmanWP
The overall feeling I got from that Podcast was how "unprofessional" Amy behaved.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2015, 23:52
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:The overall feeling I got from that Podcast was how "unprofessional" Amy behaved.

Yeah, me too. I was expecting more balanced commentary but it seems the BS rot has permeated thru the ranks.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2015, 01:13
by charlielima223
Just listened to the pod cast and heard Tom Osborne's comments about the Typhoon and Sukhoi... that reminded me about all the internet debates, arguments, and fanboyism between the Raptor and Typhoon.

This is what I saw plenty of.
Image

Image

I still see plenty of this about the "F-35 vs F-16 dogfight" test. :bang:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2015, 14:22
by quicksilver
popcorn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The overall feeling I got from that Podcast was how "unprofessional" Amy behaved.

Yeah, me too. I was expecting more balanced commentary but it seems the BS rot has permeated thru the ranks.


I sensed nothing unprofessional, they simply have no more clue than most of the listeners theyre trying to attract. It's a shame what AvWeek has become...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2015, 15:13
by uclass
The bit I found craziest was the claimed victory of 1 Su-30 against 2 Typhoons WVR. Hell, that's more of an insult to the pilots than the plane.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 04:39
by optimist

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 01:26
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:
I sensed nothing unprofessional, they simply have no more clue than most of the listeners theyre trying to attract. It's a shame what AvWeek has become...


You would think a publication dedicated to the latest in aviation would have a better grasp of flight testing

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 01:26
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3135487/leaked-dogfight-test-reveals-that-f-35-jet-is-in-very-big-trouble-1.3136411


Axe does an interview, scrap the f-35 and buy euro 4th gen.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/pla ... 2671050419



No thanks dave

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 02:36
by blindpilot
XanderCrews wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
I sensed nothing unprofessional, they simply have no more clue than most of the listeners theyre trying to attract. It's a shame what AvWeek has become...


You would think a publication dedicated to the latest in aviation would have a better grasp of flight testing


It's more of a case that a 'ma.. "journalist" gots to know his limitations.'

All the way back in the mid 70's we used to laugh at how badly Av Week would get stories on SR-71/U-2/Sat intel. Virtually every story was ... "A" took pictures, and we knew it was "B", and then B when C and C when A. I don't think they ever got it right. Today's generation is just a bit more pompous and arrogant in their ignorance.

BP

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 02:54
by spazsinbad
A few pages back the Indians were measuring their short arms for inspection:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27186&p=297802&hilit=India#p297802

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-arm_inspection

Now the Indian Guvmnt is contrite: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=124737

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 01:16
by popcorn
The Indian Givernment must have realized all the glowing accounts were only making them look foolish and unprofessional so good move.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 09:22
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:The Indian Givernment must have realized all the glowing accounts were only making them look foolish and unprofessional so good move.



I hope the Indian Government holds whoever is responsible accountable. Really, just makes them look foolish and poor sportsman to boot. :(

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 12:50
by charlielima223
I always wonder how much more kinematic/physical performance can we really squeeze out of modern aircraft. It really seems like we're at the zenith in that aspect.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 13:07
by zero-one
charlielima223 wrote:I always wonder how much more kinematic/physical performance can we really squeeze out of modern aircraft. It really seems like we're at the zenith in that aspect.


charlielima223 wrote:I always wonder how much more kinematic/physical performance can we really squeeze out of modern aircraft. It really seems like we're at the zenith in that aspect.


Depends on how you look at it.
The F-16 for example is near the peek of what the human pilot can whitstand when it comes to maintaining High Gs, any higher and the pilot would pass out
The F-15 is near the peek of useful high altitude performance, any higher and your simply alone up there.
The F/A-18 is near the peek of high angle of attack maneuverability and slow speed agility useful for air combat engagements, any lower and you're a aerobatic sitting duck.

The requirement fir the ATF program was to combine all of these.
Amazingly this was acheived and was even surpassed,

To me the Raptor may be the absolute peek of useful kinematic performance for a manned fighter.
The PAK-FA may slightly be better in some asspects but if it will give any sort of tactical advantage is subject to debate.

I often tell PAK-FA fans that being more maneuverable than the Raptor is pretty useless as the F-22 is too maneuverable already.
Veteran test pilot David Kooley is no stranger to high Gs but even he couldn't stay awake when he pulled an extreme high G maneuver in the F-22 while at supersonic.

Raptor pilots also wear an advanced G suit called ATAGS, but even that didn't save him.


But as for the F-16, sure it could use a little more AOA performance, the F/A-18 could use a little more power for high Gs and acceleration, Typhoons and Rafales could use a little more agility in some areas as well

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2015, 15:13
by madrat
About the only way at this point to sustain more G's is a fluid filled cockpit where the pilot is neutral buoyant. That's an awful lot of extra mass to haul around.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 02:12
by charlielima223
zero-one wrote:
Depends on how you look at it.
The F-16 for example is near the peek of what the human pilot can whitstand when it comes to maintaining High Gs, any higher and the pilot would pass out
The F-15 is near the peek of useful high altitude performance, any higher and your simply alone up there.
The F/A-18 is near the peek of high angle of attack maneuverability and slow speed agility useful for air combat engagements, any lower and you're a aerobatic sitting duck.

The requirement fir the ATF program was to combine all of these.
Amazingly this was acheived and was even surpassed,

To me the Raptor may be the absolute peek of useful kinematic performance for a manned fighter.
The PAK-FA may slightly be better in some asspects but if it will give any sort of tactical advantage is subject to debate.

I often tell PAK-FA fans that being more maneuverable than the Raptor is pretty useless as the F-22 is too maneuverable already.
Veteran test pilot David Kooley is no stranger to high Gs but even he couldn't stay awake when he pulled an extreme high G maneuver in the F-22 while at supersonic.

Raptor pilots also wear an advanced G suit called ATAGS, but even that didn't save him.


But as for the F-16, sure it could use a little more AOA performance, the F/A-18 could use a little more power for high Gs and acceleration, Typhoons and Rafales could use a little more agility in some areas as well



That is my point. How much can you really improve it to truly say and that one is head and shoulders superior above the other? You always see and hear the common "arguments" people make that qualifies an aircraft to be a good dogfighter...

>service ceiling 50000+
>9g capable
>Mach 2+ top speed
>wingload

I always see those and think, "okay that is nice but do you really need mach 2+ top speed. When do you use it and how often? How effective can you maneuver at 50000+? 9g, at what speed, turn rate, altitude, ect? There is more to modern aircraft now than just wingload aspect ratio . Things like body lift, vortex chines, leading edge extension and so on that all equate to lifting properties now (not saying that a good wing design on an aircraft is useless). It seems at one point you're just going to be fighting that impossible battle up the straight 90degrees vertical climb known as physics. Even if you take the pilot out of the aircraft (which some people now claim is the ultimate limiting factor, I tend to disagree) how much more maneuverable can that hypothetical aircraft really be?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 03:03
by popcorn
IIRC there have been accounrs of F-15 pilots with thousands of hours in the jet and when retirement rolled around the total number of minutes spent flying at M2 in training and combat did not exceed the number of fingers on ine hand.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 03:17
by MD
popcorn wrote:IIRC there have been accounrs of F-15 pilots with thousands of hours in the jet and when retirement olled around the total number of minutes spent flying at M2 in training and combat did not exceed the number of fingers on ine hand.


There's no practical need to. No real gain from it. Burn tons of fuel, can't employ weapons. Ok, so you get from A to B fast, and empty on gas when there. :)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 05:22
by zero-one
Well there are several arguments to the Mach 2 capabilities importance.

1. It's not the actual speed that's important but the factors that make it possible. The F-15's low drag airframe and high thrust engines are some of the things that make it possible to go Mach 2, but the real purpose of that was to allow the Eagle to gain and maintain energy in a turning fight.

2. One of the tasks of the F-15 was to intercept the Mach 3 capable Mig-25 coming from Eastern Europe, Luckily the only Foxbats the F-15 came across were defenders from Iraq. They really had nowhere to run and were forced to fight Eagles.

But if Secretary Gorbachev decided to attack Western Europe, then the first few minutes of the War could see whats left of the F-15 forces scrambling at top speed to intercept the incoming Soviet Waves, Mach 2 may not even be fast enough.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 07:15
by popcorn
MD wrote:
popcorn wrote:IIRC there have been accounrs of F-15 pilots with thousands of hours in the jet and when retirement olled around the total number of minutes spent flying at M2 in training and combat did not exceed the number of fingers on ine hand.


There's no practical need to. No real gain from it. Burn tons of fuel, can't employ weapons. Ok, so you get from A to B fast, and empty on gas when there. :)



Lessons taken into account in the design of he F-35.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 10:23
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:
MD wrote:
popcorn wrote:IIRC there have been accounrs of F-15 pilots with thousands of hours in the jet and when retirement olled around the total number of minutes spent flying at M2 in training and combat did not exceed the number of fingers on ine hand.


There's no practical need to. No real gain from it. Burn tons of fuel, can't employ weapons. Ok, so you get from A to B fast, and empty on gas when there. :)



Lessons taken into account in the design of he F-35.


Yes, I love when people say OMG the F-15C fly's Mach 2.5 and the F-35 fly's Mach 1.6! As you know instantly they have no idea what they're talking about. As in the real world a Combat Loaded F-15C never even get's close to Mach 2 let alone Mach 2.5. Plus, the fact even at speeds near Mach 1.7-8 they likely will burn out there engines. While the F-35 can go Mach 1.6+ every day will no effect on it's engine whatsoever.....Same goes for the whole flight spectrum.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 13:03
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:As in the real world a Combat Loaded F-15C never even get's close to Mach 2 let alone Mach 2.5. Plus, the fact even at speeds near Mach 1.7-8 they likely will burn out there engines.


Any evidence of this at all?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 13:58
by JetTest
Not likely. I have personally watched a -229 sit at full burner for.more that 25 minutes with no problems.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 00:21
by spazsinbad
F-35 From the Cockpit Episode One: 4th Gen vs 5th Gen
Published on Aug 14, 2015 LockheedMartinVideos

"How would a 4th generation fighter compete against a 5th generation fighter? F-35 test pilot Billie Flynn, a former Canadian Armed Forces aviator who has flown everything from the CF-18 to the F-16 to the F-35, explains his theory."


Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 20:27
by bring_it_on
Thought this would be relevant since the report talked about the flight test in the High AOA regime..

F-35A High Angle Of Attack Testing - Steven Baer, Lockheed Martin, Edwards Air Force Base California (2014)

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 21:04
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'bringUSstuff' :mrgreen: Wot a great find. Here is just the conclusion.... IS THERE A DATE for the PUB Please? OCT 2013
F-35A High Angle-of-Attack Testing
Oct 2013 Steven Baer Lockheed Martin, Edwards Air Force Base, California, 93523

“...Circle flow combat is one of the basic fighter maneuvers where two pilots engage in a sustained or instantaneous turn towards or away from one another. In this fight, the first pilot to get his aircraft's nose on the enemy will get the first shot off. In Fig. 7 is a combat scenario where both the aircraft turn towards one another. Here the friendly fighter has high AoA capability, allowing him, with proper timing, to pitch his nose up to get line of sight first on the enemy.

Used properly, high angle-of-attack capability can be the "gold nugget" that determines whether or not the F-35 comes out the victor in air combat. When combined with an already impressive arsenal of weapons, sensors, and stealth, the JSF will be a formidable foe in the air.”

Source: download/file.php?id=21418

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 21:14
by bring_it_on
Spaz, this is the publication - 10/13

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-2057

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 22:57
by smsgtmac
:thumb: :cheers:
The most relevant bits of which I believe, were summarized here:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... -show.html (scroll to second half)

Edited tonight to add the smileys my phone wouldn't let me add this afternoon to convey the confirmatory spirit of the comment. (sounded too snotty without them) :-D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 23:33
by bring_it_on
smsgtmac wrote:The most relevant bits of which I believe, were summarized here:
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... -show.html (scroll to second half)


Thanks Mac..

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 01:18
by charlielima223
So really the F-35 team was testing and making find adjustments to the F-35's handling at high AoA. So why all the doom and gloom that it couldn't dogfight?

When people always bring up that stupid article about F-16 defeating the F-35 in a "simulated dogfight" I immediately have this face and thought...
Image

So really, can anyone speculate how they believe or think the F-35 would fight in a WVR arena?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 01:43
by Dragon029
From the data that's been shown, I would just simply say that it'll dogfight / maneuver as well as a Hornet / Super Hornet, if not better.

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/ ... erformance

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.


Combined with it's high AOA capabilities and the HMDS's ability to indicate the relative position of their adversary, it should be decent. Pretty much the only 2 issues with it's performance are:

1. That limited pitch rate; the software needs to have that alleviated.

2. Thrust-to-weight; this isn't much of an issue and it doesn't have that bad a thrust-to-weight, but because it's a high-alpha fighter, being able to accelerate out of a low energy state is important in allowing the pilot to find another gold nugget in the event that the first turns out to be pyrite.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 16:18
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Dragon029 wrote:2. Thrust-to-weight; this isn't much of an issue and it doesn't have that bad a thrust-to-weight, but because it's a high-alpha fighter, being able to accelerate out of a low energy state is important in allowing the pilot to find another gold nugget in the event that the first turns out to be pyrite.

Right, having a bleed from a high alpha pull is one thing, but the question is what are the pilots options afterwards?

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 17:53
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:but the question is what are the pilots options afterwards?


Prey there is only one bad guy...............

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 19:48
by bring_it_on
basher54321 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:but the question is what are the pilots options afterwards?


Prey there is only one bad guy...............


That's one issue with all this really slow speed post stall stuff..Its unlikely to be performed at a decent altitude, and then there is the entire furball to account for..Energy management is still a very important area unless you want to be a nice slow target that is unable to do much in a furball..

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2015, 12:50
by reaper
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:2. Thrust-to-weight; this isn't much of an issue and it doesn't have that bad a thrust-to-weight, but because it's a high-alpha fighter, being able to accelerate out of a low energy state is important in allowing the pilot to find another gold nugget in the event that the first turns out to be pyrite.

Right, having a bleed from a high alpha pull is one thing, but the question is what are the pilots options afterwards?


Designate another target and fire an AMRAAM, or hopefully some day, an AIM-9x. I know we all love talking EM but I'm in the camp that the days of the "get on his 6" dogfights are long gone. WVR is going to be a death sentence for lots of people against a capable enemy with HMS and HOBS missiles.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2015, 14:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
reaper wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Right, having a bleed from a high alpha pull is one thing, but the question is what are the pilots options afterwards?


Designate another target and fire an AMRAAM, or hopefully some day, an AIM-9x. I know we all love talking EM but I'm in the camp that the days of the "get on his 6" dogfights are long gone. WVR is going to be a death sentence for lots of people against a capable enemy with HMS and HOBS missiles.

yep, right now that is the pilots option. Make sure someone else has his immediate "6" clear and scoot on out.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2015, 14:34
by spazsinbad
Full 2 page PDF article attached below - only a two paragraph excerpt here:
APERTURE The F-35 “can’t fight”; New tactics; Marine Corps operational ....
Sep 2015 John A. Tirpak

"...All that said, F-35 pilots believe the jet will be a sterling dogfighter at need. The Air Force F-35A model was designed to turn at nine Gs with a full load of internal fuel and weapons—far outclassing any enemy lugging missiles and fuel tanks around. The Navy and Marine Corps versions are spec’d to 7.5Gs—the same as their current F/A-18s and AV-8Bs. With the DAS, however, and the F-35 pilot’s helmet, which allows him to see, select, and shoot at a target that he isn’t actually pointing at, F-35 pilots will have extraordinary awareness. The F-35 will be nimble enough, however, to help it evade any missiles actually fired at it.

All that said, F-35 pilots believe the jet will be a sterling dogfighter at need. The Air Force F-35A model was designed to turn at nine Gs with a full load of internal fuel and weapons—far outclassing any enemy lugging missiles and fuel tanks around. The Navy and Marine Corps versions are spec’d to 7.5Gs—the same as their current F/A-18s and AV-8Bs. With the DAS, however, and the F-35 pilot’s helmet, which allows him to see, select, and shoot at a target that he isn’t actually pointing at, F-35 pilots will have extraordinary awareness. The F-35 will be nimble enough, however, to help it evade any missiles actually fired at it...."

Source: AIR FORCE Magazine / September 2015

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 04:31
by smsgtmac
Dave Majumdar is apparently now the Defense Editor of 'National Interest' website, and comes within a word or two of libeling Billie Flynn while claiming Axe's' fake 'dogfight' story 'proves' Flynn's deceptive ways. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... wins-13802

I, of course, have already posted something on the matter, but for some reason my pointers to it don't seem to 'take' within the NI comment thread. :wink:

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 05:19
by geforcerfx
spazsinbad wrote:Full 2 page PDF article attached below - only a two paragraph excerpt here:
With the DAS, however, and the F-35 pilot’s helmet, which allows him to see, select, and shoot at a target that he isn’t actually pointing at, F-35 pilots will have extraordinary awareness. The F-35 will be nimble enough, however, to help it evade any missiles actually fired at it.

Source: AIR FORCE Magazine / September 2015


Can you imagine when they reach a level of sensor fusion and networking on the F-35 when you aim and fire on the target with DAS and HMD the weapon comes off the plane with the best chance of hitting the target, not just your plane. Getting to that level pretty much signify s the end to wanting to merge, when a 4 vs 4 flight goes in and everyone is engaging everyone having the ability to guarantee the best missile is launched against the most vulnerable target pretty much assures victory.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2015, 05:30
by spazsinbad
On previous page there is the Majumdar National Interest BLOG? or ar tickle - you be the judge. I like this harrumph GAWD
"...Meanwhile, proponents of the F-35—primarily Lockheed Martin and the JSF program office (JPO)—tried to dismiss the results—aggressively calling out the War is Boring outlet by name...."

Well hush my mouth honey chile.

Majumdar is either a numnutnitwit or does not understand this point at all?
"... One example I can cite immediately is when Lockheed test pilot Billie Flynn told me how a fully laden F-35 has better high AOA performance and acceleration than all comers save for the F-22. The test report that David Axe managed to obtain clearly shows Flynn’s assertions to be false...."

We might like to ponder what 'fully laden F-35' means - again - and ponder the apples to apples comparison with the others - again.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2015, 01:39
by spectre0618
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay6g66FbkmQ

Apologies if this was already posted earlier. For anyone wondering about DAS and how it could apply in a WVR dogfight I think this shows just how lethal the F-35 will be.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2015, 02:37
by spazsinbad
Strange as it may sound/feel/textually compute this forum can be searched using the youtube reference text string from the URL such as the one above is Ay6g66FbkmQ. Searching the F-35 forum produces three other instances where the exact same video is referenced. Perhaps worthwhile to visit the hits to see what else is referenced - but I'm not you.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2016, 06:34
by spazsinbad
Lt. Col. Raja Chari Talks About the Way Ahead with the F-35: The Renorming of Airpower Seen from Edwards
24 Mar 2016 Edward Timperlake and Robbin Laird

"...We were fortunate to interview one such Fighter Pilot, Lt Col Raja Chari, Director of the F-35 Integrated Test Force and Commander of the 461st Flight Test Squadron (FTS), Edwards Air Force Base, California. He is a senior pilot with combat experience and more than 2,000 flying hours in the F-35A/B/C, F-15C/D/E, F-18, F-16, T-38A/C, T-37, and T-6.

Following undergraduate pilot training at Vance AFB, OK and F-15E training at Seymour Johnson AFB, NC, Lt Col Chari served as an F-15E Evaluator Pilot and Chief of Standardization and Evaluation at Elmendorf AFB, AK and RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, where he gained operational experience in the Pacific and flew combat missions in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

Lt Col Chari served at Eglin AFB executing flight test on F-15 aircraft to include the introduction of the first Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar on the F-15E. He is also a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College....

...Question: We discussed the so-called F-16 and F-35 dogfight with colleagues earlier today, what is your take on this amazingly blown out of context story?
Answer: My first week here that story came out. I found the whole thing amazing because it did not even involve a simulated combat sortie. We were going after some particular test points.

The F-16 was simply a test aid, not in a dogfight with the F-35. The story was simply spun and used by those who like to spin stories.

Because this happened just after I got here, I reached back to the leadership to determine whether this would have a chilling effect on our pilot reporting and discussions and was given clear guidance that we were not testing in response to the press, we were testing to evolve the aircraft.

That was made very clear from the top down. We are looking for accurate test and evolution of the aircraft, not a managed press campaign. Somebody else’s distortions are not going to deter our discussions.

And really, discussing the F-16 with the F-35 would be like a horse cavalry officer discussing the tank during the First World War...."
&
"...Question: There is an evolution of the tactics coming from places like Yuma and Nellis as they start to learn fifth generation combat F-35 style. How does that feed in to your efforts?
Answer: The OT squadron here is a clear player in that domain and we work together closely and feedback goes both ways. But the tactics OT is developing are very different.

We are likely not going to do visual formations with the F-35 tactically; you are operating over multiple tens of miles and flying distributed ops where you can have completely different functions or tasks being performed by those aircraft within the same four-ship.

You are essentially spreading out the geometry of air combat. You are not simply operating in or patrolling a lane but operating a much wider variable geometry...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/lt-col-raja-char ... m-edwards/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2016, 23:35
by rnvalencia
Dragon029 wrote:From the data that's been shown, I would just simply say that it'll dogfight / maneuver as well as a Hornet / Super Hornet, if not better.

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/ ... erformance

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.


Combined with it's high AOA capabilities and the HMDS's ability to indicate the relative position of their adversary, it should be decent. Pretty much the only 2 issues with it's performance are:

1. That limited pitch rate; the software needs to have that alleviated.

2. Thrust-to-weight; this isn't much of an issue and it doesn't have that bad a thrust-to-weight, but because it's a high-alpha fighter, being able to accelerate out of a low energy state is important in allowing the pilot to find another gold nugget in the event that the first turns out to be pyrite.

From http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfl ... orste-uka/
More F-16 vs F-35 from Norwegian pilot.
I quote
Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo.


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ely-at-th/
F-35C has 300 degrees per second roll rate.


http://theaviationist.com/2015/05/01/ai ... in-t-346a/
According to most reports a Rafale features a maximum roll rate of 270 deg/s, the Eurofighter Typhoon is able of around 250 deg/s, the F/A-18E Super Hornet has a maximum roll rate of 120 deg/s whereas the F-16 can roll at 240 deg/s.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 01:31
by johnwill
There are some things that need to be said about maximum roll rate. First, if the pilot applies a pure roll command, the airplane rolls around the flight path axis, not it's own longitudinal axis. The difference is angle of attack.
Second, maximum roll rate is not very important. For the F-16, there isn't even a spec for roll rate. Roll performance requirements are expressed as "time to bank" for 90 and 360 degrees. In a 90 degree roll, the airplane cannot reach max roll rate, so the most important factor is roll acceleration, or how quickly the rate increases. In a 360 roll, both acceleration and max rate are important. Just a guess on my part, but I don't think full 360 rolls are often used in combat operations. Maybe some pilots can comment on that.
Because of fly by wire, it is easy to crank in any acceleration you want, but if you program in too much the airplane becomes too sensitive and structural load limits may be exeeded.
In addition to roll acceleration to initiate a roll, roll termination acceleration (decel) is important. Again using F-16 as an example, roll termination acceleration is almost twice that of initiation. It stops really fast.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 02:05
by lamoey
johnwill wrote:There are some things that need to be said about maximum roll rate. First, if the pilot applies a pure roll command, the airplane rolls around the flight path axis, not it's own longitudinal axis. The difference is angle of attack.
Second, maximum roll rate is not very important. For the F-16, there isn't even a spec for roll rate. Roll performance requirements are expressed as "time to bank" for 90 and 360 degrees. In a 90 degree roll, the airplane cannot reach max roll rate, so the most important factor is roll acceleration, or how quickly the rate increases. In a 360 roll, both acceleration and max rate are important. Just a guess on my part, but I don't think full 360 rolls are often used in combat operations. Maybe some pilots can comment on that.
Because of fly by wire, it is easy to crank in any acceleration you want, but if you program in too much the airplane becomes too sensitive and structural load limits may be exeeded.
In addition to roll acceleration to initiate a roll, roll termination acceleration (decel) is important. Again using F-16 as an example, roll termination acceleration is almost twice that of initiation. It stops really fast.


I once saw the hud video from one F-16 chasing another in a vertical climb. The one in front then started a very rapid roll rate. This caused so much condensation that the lead F-16 became completely hidden in the mist. Suddenly it came shooting out of the mist in, a surprise direction, as if shot out of a cannon. The trailing F-16 tried to counter the move but had to roll, then pitch to follow, hence he lost his 6 0'clock position on the lead F-16. So, yes I do believe they can use that high roll rate for something useful.

The only reason I got to see that video was that the pilot wanted to convince me that the HUD max G reading actually had hit 9.9G.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 02:52
by spazsinbad
'rnvalencia' would you be able to post the flightglobal blog article in full please? This is the message from Flight Global:
"Blogs Annoucement
After much deliberation we have made the difficult decision to permanently close the Flightglobal blogs...."

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 03:21
by vanshilar
spazsinbad wrote:'rnvalencia' would you be able to post the flightglobal blog article in full please? This is the message from Flight Global:


You'll have to use the wayback machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130728155 ... ely-at-th/

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 04:26
by johnwill
lamoey wrote:
johnwill wrote:There are some things that need to be said about maximum roll rate. First, if the pilot applies a pure roll command, the airplane rolls around the flight path axis, not it's own longitudinal axis. The difference is angle of attack.
Second, maximum roll rate is not very important. For the F-16, there isn't even a spec for roll rate. Roll performance requirements are expressed as "time to bank" for 90 and 360 degrees. In a 90 degree roll, the airplane cannot reach max roll rate, so the most important factor is roll acceleration, or how quickly the rate increases. In a 360 roll, both acceleration and max rate are important. Just a guess on my part, but I don't think full 360 rolls are often used in combat operations. Maybe some pilots can comment on that.
Because of fly by wire, it is easy to crank in any acceleration you want, but if you program in too much the airplane becomes too sensitive and structural load limits may be exeeded.
In addition to roll acceleration to initiate a roll, roll termination acceleration (decel) is important. Again using F-16 as an example, roll termination acceleration is almost twice that of initiation. It stops really fast.


I once saw the hud video from one F-16 chasing another in a vertical climb. The one in front then started a very rapid roll rate. This caused so much condensation that the lead F-16 became completely hidden in the mist. Suddenly it came shooting out of the mist in, a surprise direction, as if shot out of a cannon. The trailing F-16 tried to counter the move but had to roll, then pitch to follow, hence he lost his 6 0'clock position on the lead F-16. So, yes I do believe they can use that high roll rate for something useful.

The only reason I got to see that video was that the pilot wanted to convince me that the HUD max G reading actually had hit 9.9G.



mvalencia posted some maximum roll rates for several airplanes. The purpose of my post was to say that maximum roll rates are not very important. I did not mean to give the impression that roll performance is not important. More important than max roll rate is roll acceleration. To reach max roll rate, an airplane has to roll somewhere between 180 and 270 degrees bank angle change. So if the roll in your example was less than that, the airplane did not reach max roll rate.

To summarize, roll performance is important, but max roll rate is not a good indicator of roll performance. The spec is time to bank, because that is what is important.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 04:29
by spazsinbad
Thanks - not a good article for roll rate IMHO:
"...The simulator is for demonstration purposes only. It is not intended to accurately simulate the F-35′s flight and
handling qualities. But Lockheed has coded the system to approximate how the F-35 should fly. So it rolls at the F-
35′s promised roll-rate at 300 degrees per second. It apparently tops out at Mach 1.6, the F-35′s top speed...."

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 06:00
by tincansailor
I once saw the hud video from one F-16 chasing another in a vertical climb. The one in front then started a very rapid roll rate. This caused so much condensation that the lead F-16 became completely hidden in the mist. Suddenly it came shooting out of the mist in, a surprise direction, as if shot out of a cannon. The trailing F-16 tried to counter the move but had to roll, then pitch to follow, hence he lost his 6 0'clock position on the lead F-16. So, yes I do believe they can use that high roll rate for something useful.

The only reason I got to see that video was that the pilot wanted to convince me that the HUD max G reading actually had hit 9.9G.[/quote]

Wow that's amazing. I have one question. I don't understand how the high speed roll caused condensation? Is that an effect like the contrails off the wing tips of fighters doing similar maneuvers? If that works at predictable altitudes and atmospheric condition it sounds like a great defensive maneuver in a gun fight. Whoever thought a fighter could make it's own cloud cover.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 07:36
by vanshilar
tincansailor wrote:Whoever thought a fighter could make it's own cloud cover.


Haven't you been keeping up with China's aviation program?

Image

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 10:32
by tincansailor
vanshilar wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Whoever thought a fighter could make it's own cloud cover.


Haven't you been keeping up with China's aviation program?

Image


Wow your right. That's fantastic. That's a better smoke screen then James Bond's Aston Martin could ever put out. I never knew the Chinese were so advanced. GE, PW, and RR need to look into this smoke screen technology for their future engine designs. The fighter with the best smoke screen will rule the skies.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 10:35
by mk82
spazsinbad wrote:
Lt. Col. Raja Chari Talks About the Way Ahead with the F-35: The Renorming of Airpower Seen from Edwards
24 Mar 2016 Edward Timperlake and Robbin Laird

"...We were fortunate to interview one such Fighter Pilot, Lt Col Raja Chari, Director of the F-35 Integrated Test Force and Commander of the 461st Flight Test Squadron (FTS), Edwards Air Force Base, California. He is a senior pilot with combat experience and more than 2,000 flying hours in the F-35A/B/C, F-15C/D/E, F-18, F-16, T-38A/C, T-37, and T-6.

Following undergraduate pilot training at Vance AFB, OK and F-15E training at Seymour Johnson AFB, NC, Lt Col Chari served as an F-15E Evaluator Pilot and Chief of Standardization and Evaluation at Elmendorf AFB, AK and RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, where he gained operational experience in the Pacific and flew combat missions in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

Lt Col Chari served at Eglin AFB executing flight test on F-15 aircraft to include the introduction of the first Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar on the F-15E. He is also a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College....

...Question: We discussed the so-called F-16 and F-35 dogfight with colleagues earlier today, what is your take on this amazingly blown out of context story?
Answer: My first week here that story came out. I found the whole thing amazing because it did not even involve a simulated combat sortie. We were going after some particular test points.

The F-16 was simply a test aid, not in a dogfight with the F-35. The story was simply spun and used by those who like to spin stories.

Because this happened just after I got here, I reached back to the leadership to determine whether this would have a chilling effect on our pilot reporting and discussions and was given clear guidance that we were not testing in response to the press, we were testing to evolve the aircraft.

That was made very clear from the top down. We are looking for accurate test and evolution of the aircraft, not a managed press campaign. Somebody else’s distortions are not going to deter our discussions.

And really, discussing the F-16 with the F-35 would be like a horse cavalry officer discussing the tank during the First World War...."
&
"...Question: There is an evolution of the tactics coming from places like Yuma and Nellis as they start to learn fifth generation combat F-35 style. How does that feed in to your efforts?
Answer: The OT squadron here is a clear player in that domain and we work together closely and feedback goes both ways. But the tactics OT is developing are very different.

We are likely not going to do visual formations with the F-35 tactically; you are operating over multiple tens of miles and flying distributed ops where you can have completely different functions or tasks being performed by those aircraft within the same four-ship.

You are essentially spreading out the geometry of air combat. You are not simply operating in or patrolling a lane but operating a much wider variable geometry...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/lt-col-raja-char ... m-edwards/


This!!!

Basement Dwellers and punk journalists can choke on this!!!

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2016, 12:49
by mixelflick
Read a 42 pages here's my takeaway..

*Going to have some very competitive WVR capabilities, on par with other 4++ gen jets
*May be outperformed in some parts of the envelope, but you can say that of any plane
*Stealth, sensors and SA will be second to none
*Even if it's a "dog" WVR, plenty of F-22's, F-15's, 16's, SH's, Typhoons, Rafales and Gripens to perform air to air

If quality 5th gen's were rolling off production lines in Russia/China I might think differently, but that isn't the case here. In the end, I'd bet good $ F-35 turns out to be a world beater, like the F-15 (after it got panned over and over and over).

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2016, 18:54
by KamenRiderBlade
My missile will out bank your fighter jet & you won't see it coming until it's too late.

=D

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2016, 23:02
by cola
spazsinbad wrote:
You are essentially spreading out the geometry of air combat. You are not simply operating in or patrolling a lane but operating a much wider variable geometry...."
Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/lt-col-raja-char ... m-edwards/


A rather bold claim considering JSF's subpar flight performance.
Let's see how that plays out in reality, rather than storytelling...

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2016, 23:54
by sferrin
cola wrote:A rather bold claim considering JSF's subpar flight performance.


Qualify that statement with objective sources please.

F-35Reality2_zps0672c074.jpg

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2016, 00:20
by quicksilver
"Going to have some very competitive WVR capabilities, on par with other 4++ gen jets"

In a world of HMDs and HOBs missiles, if everyone sees each other at the same time, the WVR arena is a toss up.

What lotsa folks are having a hard time understanding is that 'seeing each other at the same time' will rarely be the case. F-35 is the prohibitive favorite to 'see first' -- all the time -- which means entering the WVR arena largely on one's own terms.

That's what it is doing today. Right now. Today.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2016, 02:33
by neurotech
quicksilver wrote:"Going to have some very competitive WVR capabilities, on par with other 4++ gen jets"

In a world of HMDs and HOBs missiles, if everyone sees each other at the same time, the WVR arena is a toss up.

Even WVR, using a HMD and HOBS is useless if the pilot doesn't know where to look. In the ancient days, it was discovered during HAVE DONUT that the MiG-17/MiG-19/MiG-21 had very poor visibility under the nose. This information enabled US pilots to tactically exploit the blind spot under the MiG. The F-35 would have a huge advantage in having spherical EODAS to locate the bandit through the floor in a WVR dogfight. The F-22 can be beaten WVR if the bandit stays under them, and the F-22 pilot looses track of the bandit.
quicksilver wrote:What lotsa folks are having a hard time understanding is that 'seeing each other at the same time' will rarely be the case. F-35 is the prohibitive favorite to 'see first' -- all the time -- which means entering the WVR arena largely on one's own terms.

That's what it is doing today. Right now. Today.

Exactly. The F-35 will know where the bandit is and engage on their terms. Relatively few dogfights are a head-to-head merge with both sides tight visual. In 1989 over the Gulf of Sidra, the MiGs turned into the F-14s which tried to turn away at an offset, before firing at the MiGs. The successful missile shots were at 5 miles, and 1.5 miles. That is more typical of a WVR dogfight.

Re: F-35 Flies Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2016, 04:32
by popc